Wilson Sporting Goods Company v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “in contrast to the insert of claim 1, the insert in [claim 18] need not be perfectly circular”
• opining that “rigid” is a “very relative term” and that “even a pressurized rubber balloon could in some cases be ‘rigid’”
• noting that “a court may not use the accused product or process as a form of extrinsic evidence to supply limitations for patent claim language”
• explaining hat “claims may not be construed with reference to the accused device” (quoting NeoMagic Corp. v. Trident Microsystems, Inc., 287 F.3d 1062, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
• “[A] court may not use the accused product or process as a form of extrinsic evidence to supply limitations for patent claim language.”
• “[C]laims may not be construed with reference to the accused device.” (quoting NeoMagic Corp. v. Trident Microsystems, Inc., 287 F.3d 1062, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2002))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).