Symantec Corp. v. Hilgraeve Corp
Symantec Corp. v. Hilgraeve Corp, 535 U.S. 906 (2002)
Opinion
SYMANTEC CORP. v. HILGRAEVE CORP.
No. 01-1140.
Supreme Court of the United States.
March 4, 2002.
1
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 265 F. 3d 1336 .
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that "[t]he plain meaning rule is applicable when the statutory language is clear, unambiguous, and not controlled by other parts of the act or other acts on the same subject.")
-
(“an accused device may be found to infringe if it is reasonably capable of satisfying the claim limitations, even though it may also be capable of non-infringing modes of operation”)
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Peter Lewis v. Odie Washington, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, Mary Nichols, Richard Gramley, Lieutenant Shaw, and Lieutenant Jones
- Dersch Energies, Inc. v. Shell Oil Company and Equilon Enterprises, Inc.
- Cargill, Inc. v. Sears Petroleum & Transport Corp.
- Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc.
- In re Nortel Networks, Inc.
- In re Kersey
Most recent
- In re Nortel Networks, Inc.
- Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. GlobalSantaFe Corp.
- Cargill, Inc. v. Sears Petroleum & Transport Corp.
- Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc.
- Dersch Energies, Inc. v. Shell Oil Company and Equilon Enterprises, Inc.
- Peter Lewis v. Odie Washington, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, Mary Nichols, Richard Gramley, Lieutenant Shaw, and Lieutenant Jones
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.