Schwing Gmbh v. Putzmeister Aktiengesellschaft and Putzmeister, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the Supreme Court “discussed several ways in which the patentee could overcome [the] presumption” and listing the three examples from Festo II without connecting them to a single, broad, over-arching standard
• affirming summary judgment of no literal infringement, where the plaintiff relied on: (1) an expert declaration that did not clearly state that the accused product infringed the relevant limitation; (2) blurred and indistinct photographs of the accused product; and (3
• “[P]rosecution history ... cannot be used to limit the scope of a claim unless the applicant took a position before the PTO that would lead a competitor to believe that the applicant had disavowed coverage of the relevant subject matter.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).