Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[t]he ordering requirement described [in the claim language]... .is consistent with the specification”
• noting that, when a definite article is used in a claim, “[s]ubsequent use of the definite article[] ‘the’ . . . in a claim refers back to the same term recited earlier in the claim”
• noting, “[s}ubsequent use of the definite articles ‘the’ or ‘said’ in a claim refers back to the same term recited earlier in the claim”
• “Subsequent use of the definite articles “the” or “said” in a claim refers back to the same term recited earlier in the claim.”
• “Subsequent 1 use of the definite articles ‘the’ or ‘said’ in a claim refers back to the same term recited 2 earlier in the claim.”
• “Subsequent use of the definite articles ‘the’ or ‘said’ in a claim refers back to the same term recited earlier in the claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).