United States ex rel. Weiss v. Hecht

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “pusher bar” and “pusher assembly” used in the same claim were presumed to have different meanings
• noting that the term “connection” had no meaning, in the context of the patent there at issue, unless the two connected objects “operatively interacted] with one another”
• rejecting a proffered construction because \the plain meaning of the claim [would] not bear [such] a reading\
• “[Plaintiff] need not have included this limitation in its claim. Having done so, it. must live with the language it chose.”
• “the district court did not import an additional limitation into the claim; instead, it looked to the specification to aid its interpretation of a term already in the claim, an entirely appropriate practice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).