Bus & Transport Securities Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “an amendment to claim language in response to prior art ‘may have a limiting effect within a spectrum ranging from great to small to zero’ ”
• standard for applying prosecution history estoppel is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would objectively conclude that an applicant surrendered subject matter
• “Literal infringement requires that the accused device contain each limitation of the claim exactly; any deviation from the claim precludes a finding of literal infringement.”
• “This principle presupposes that the applicant has made the surrender unmistakable enough that the public may reasonably rely on it.”
• where an applicant makes arguments in combination with an amendment, the scope of estoppel is a product of the effects of both factors working in concert
• prosecution history estoppel \bars recapture of that subject matter actually surrendered during prosecution\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).