Dr. Harry Gaus, Plaintiff-Cross v. Conair Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that where a claim called for “an electrical operating unit and a pair of spaced-apart electrically exposed conductive probe networks,” it required that the two elements be “separate” structures in the accused device
• affirming separateness requirement where the \clear implication of the claim language\ was that the components were distinct
• “Nothing in the descriptions of those two components suggests that their structures or functions overlap. To the contrary, the specification plainly describes the two components as separate.”
• “Nothing in the descriptions of those two components suggests that their structures or functions overlap. To the contrary, the specification plainly describes the two components as separate.”
• party had notice of claim construction issue on appeal where opponent had made similar argument before trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).