Asyst Technologies, Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the district court was correct in ruling that the doctrine of equivalents cannot be extended to reach an ‘unmounted’ system . . . without vitiating the ‘mounted on’ limitation altogether”
• explaining that finding “unmounted” equivalent to “mounted on” would vitiate the limitation
• affirming summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because “unmounted” is the opposite of “mounted on”
• refusing to apply the doctrine of equivalents where the proposed application would change \mounted\ to \unmounted\
• applying “ordinary meaning of ‘mounted on,’ i.e., securely attached, affixed, or fastened t o ”
• construing “mounted on” in patent claim to mean “affixed to” where “[t]he specification uses the phrase ‘mounted on’ to refer to a number of other components, and the context makes clear that the phrase is used in those instances to mean securely affixed to objects”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).