Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that case law for reasonable capability was inapposite where the claim required a particular configuration and recited “protrusions resting upon the closed end of the cover,” meaning that the protrusions must be resting upon the cover
• holding summary judgment of nonin- fringement to be appropriate where infringement required a particular product configuration but where there was no evidence that the infringing configuration had ever ex- isted
• “the analysis that ‘should be made explicit’ refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis.”
• con- eluding that “minimal indications of commercial success ... do not outweigh the clear indication of obviousness apparent from the prior art”
• common sense to combine features that would increase the distance be- tween candle holder and table where there existed a concern with scorching the supporting surface

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).