In patent infringement cases, plaintiffs' claim construction strategy sometimes seems to boil down to "Plain meaning! Construe it later! Everything is in!", while defendants often go for "No plain meaning! Construe it now! Our thing is out!".
Note that, for defendants, it's not necessarily that everything is out of the claim. It's often that there is one specific thing from the specification that is required, and that just happens to be the one thing the defendant's product doesn't have or do.
This strategy doesn't have a great success rate for defendants, but often I feel like the attitude is that "well it's worth a shot." I'm not sure that's always true, because a really bad argument …