Al-Site Corporation and Magnivision, Inc. v. Vsi International, Inc. And Myron Orlinsky, Defendants-Cross

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming jury verdict of infringement based on expert testimony of known interchangeability of glue and rivet as a \fastening means\ on hanger tag for glasses
• finding functionality where company “used color coding to indicate diopter strength, not to indicate source”
• affirming a jury verdict of infringement based on expert testimony regarding the known interchangeability of glue and a rivet as a “fastening means” for an eyeglass hanger tag
• explaining difference between equivalence under § 112(f) and the doctrine of equivalents
• upholding a jury finding that a hanging tag made of a mechanically fastened loop that secured eyeglasses in a device hanging from a display rack was equivalent to a hanging tag made of two arms with holes that performed the same function
• “[W]hen an element of a claim does not use the term “means,” WILLIAMSON v. CITRIX ONLINE, LLC 11 treatment as a means-plus-function claim element is generally not appropriate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).