Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
874 F.3d 1307 · 2017
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic Inc · Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. · 134 S. Ct. 2120 - Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. · Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Claim construction seeks to ascribe the ordinary and customary meaning to claim terms as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood them at the time of invention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hile we read claims in view of the specification, of which they are a part, we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.