Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 18 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “After identifying the claimed function, the court must then determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Competitive Technologies v. Fujitsu Ltd. · 519 F. Supp. 2d 1087 - Robinson v. ADVANCED DECOY RESEARCH, INC.

2. “First, although it is indeed true as a general proposition that multiple structures can perform a single claimed function, this is so only where the claim language permits, and only where the specification clearly identifies corresponding structures. Thus, in In re Knowlton, this court’s predecessor reversed an indefiniteness rejection that appeared to be predicated on the misconception that each means-plus-function limitation “can only be read on a single mechanical element of the invention which performs the recited function without aid from other elements of the invention.” 481 F.2d 1357, 1368 , 178 USPQ 486, 494 (Oust. & Pat.App.1973) (emphasis in original). Instead, the court concluded that “the application describes and identifies apparatus combinations which perform each of the functions called for by the means-plus-function recitations of the claims, and further describes how those combinations are made, and that therefore the claims are adequately supported by the specification.” Id. (emphasis added). In light of the emphasized language, we understand Knowlton to stand not for the proposition that multiple structures may always perform a single function claimed in a means-plus function limitation, but rather that multiple structures may correspond to a single claimed function in certain instances, where the claim language permits. .See also Ishi-da [Co., Ltd. v. Taylor], 221 F.3d [1310,] 1317, 55 USPQ2d at 1454 [(Fed.Cir. 2000)] (construing the claims to cover separa”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 225 F. Supp. 2d 1069 - Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc.

3. “In order to qualify as corresponding, the structure must not only perform the claimed function, but the specification must clearly associate the structure with the performance of the function. This inquiry is undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Alternative embodiments may disclose different corresponding structure, and the claim is valid even if only one embodiment discloses corresponding structure. If, however, this inquiry reveals that no embodiment discloses corresponding structure, the claim is invalid for failure to satisfy the definiteness requirement of § 112, ¶ 2.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 587 F. Supp. 2d 840 - Baum Research & Development Co. v. University of Massachusetts