Mas-Hamilton Group v. Lagard, Inc., (Now Known as Masco Corporation) and Hi-Shear Technology Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court correctly held that “movable link member for holding the lever ...” was a means-plus-function element because there was no evidence that a “movable link member” had a well-understood structural meaning in the art
• noting that “lever moving element” is “drafted as a function to be performed rather than definite structure or materials” and therefore was properly construed as a means-plus-function element
• holding “movable link member” was subject to § 112 ¶ 6
• distinguishing for purposes of on sale bar between \mere[ ] ... potential licensee of legal rights” in patent and \potential customer of devices”
• affirming no equivalency between a solenoid powered device and an electrical stepper motor powered device since the two operate in substantially different ways
• reaching similar conclusion when comparing a solenoid powered system and a stepper motor powered system

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).