United Employer Benefit Corp. v. Oregon Department of Consumer & Business Services

noting that claims cannot be constructed narrowly in order to uphold validity, and then expanded in order to find infringement | noting that market power may be demonstrated based on facts providing either direct or circumstantial evidence of that power and stating that "circumstantial evidence of market power requires that the plaintiff, at the threshold, define the relevant market" | limiting claims based upon attorney remarks made as an “alternative” argument | “the best mode inquiry focuses on the inventor’s state of mind at the time he filed his application” | “[E]vi-dence extrinsic to the patent and prosecution history, such as expert testimony, cannot be relied on to change the meaning of the claims when that meaning is made clear by those documents.” | When a court applies the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel to limit the scope of equivalents, a close examination must be made as to, not only what was surrendered, but also the reason for such a surrender