Carl B. Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc., D/B/A Wings, and Great World Co. Of New York Ltd., and Elufa Fashions, 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 where the reason for an amendment is clear from the prosecution history, the Warner-Jenkinson presumption does not apply
• stating that the “determination of infringement, whether literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact”
• finding that a patent applicant may not amend a claim in response to an examiner’s prior art rejection, and then later challenge its necessity in a subsequent infringement action on the allowed claim
• defining “patentability” for purposes of prosecution history estoppel, in light of Warner-Jenkinson, as “patenta-bility over prior art”
• “[I]nfringement issue is properly decided upon summary judgment when . . . no reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in the properly construed claim either is or is not found in the accused device.
• “The . determination of infringement, whether literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).