Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Retractable Technologies, Inc.

(1) Whether the Federal Circuit"s construction of the "lodging" limitation should be reversed because, at the urging of Retractable Technologies, Inc. (RTI), the Federal Circuit deviated from the term"s clear meaning on far weaker grounds than the court relied on to construe the ambiguous term "body"; (2) whether the Federal Circuit"s construction of the "retainer member" limitation should be reversed because, at RTI"s urging, the Federal Circuit deviated from the term"s clear meaning on far weaker grounds than the court relied on to construe the ambiguous term "body"; and (3) whether the Federal Circuit"s holding that the asserted claims cover devices that work by cutting should be reversed because, at RTI"s urging, the Federal Circuit disregarded a clear disclaimer of claim scope on far weaker grounds than the court relied on to construe the ambiguous term "body."