Dolly, Inc. v. Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• infringement analysis requires court to interpret claim language and then determine whether accused device is within its scope
• “Equivalency can also exist when separate claim limitations are combined into a single component of the accused device.”
• “The doctrine of equivalents does not require a one-to one correspondence between components of the accused device and the claimed invention.”
• “In Coming Glass, the accused device retained both a core and cladding layer and the relationship of their respective refractive indices”
• “[T]he concept of equivalency cannot embrace a structure that is specifically excluded from the scope of the claims.”
• “ ‘Under the doctrine of equivalents, the accused device and the claimed invention cannot work in “substantially the same way” if a limitation (including its equivalents) is missing.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).