Ims Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc. And Gene Francis Haas, Defendants-Cross

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, on summary judgment, “[w]e view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movant, and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor”
• “Such limitations are “construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” ”
• “The phrase ‘control apparatus’ in the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.”
• “The phrase ‘control apparatus’ in the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.”
• to determine infringement of a means plus function claim, one must determine whether the accused device “performs the identical function with the same structure, materials, or acts described in the specification or an equivalent thereof’
• range of equivalence depends on the extent and nature of the invention

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).