In the Interest of G.F.G. and G.K.G., Children v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• \[T]he facts here do not involve later-developed computer technology which should be deemed within the scope of the claims to avoid the pirating of an invention.\
• “Section 112, paragraph 6, plays no role in determining whether an equivalent function is performed by the accused device under the doctrine of equivalents.”
• “[A court] must find equivalent structure as well as identity of claimed function for that structure.”
• if the identical function is not performed, literal infringement is not possible
• no infringement where defendant’s machine was capable of performing the claimed function, but was not actually programmed to do so
• literal equivalency is not involved if “the required function is not performed exactly in the accused device.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).