X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. International Trade Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding permissive language “may” is not mandatory unless other language makes it “clear[ly] and unmistakabl[y]” so
• “[L]abeling an embodiment or an element 9 as ‘essential’ may rise to the level of disavowal.”
• noting we have held labeling an embodiment or element as \essential\ may constitute disavowal and finding disavowal where the specification stated a disclosure was an \essential element among all embodiments or connotations of the invention\
• noting we have held labeling an embodiment or element as “essential” may constitute disavowal and finding disavowal where the specification stated a disclosure was an “essential element among all embodiments or connotations of the invention”
• “The incorporated patents are effectively part of the host patents as if they were explicitly contained therein.” (cleaned up)
• “only after [the challenger] established a prima facie case of invalidity would the burden have shifted to [the patentee] to prove priority over the invalidating prior art”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).