Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates D/B/A Slazenger, and Dunlop Slazenger Corporation AKA Dunlop Sports Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the doctrine of equivalents cannot be applied to encompass the prior art
• noting that a patent claim cannot be interpreted so broadly as to encompass the prior art
• deciding ensnarement “as a matter of law” after jury found infringement
• deciding ensnarement “as a matter of law” aftér jury found • infringement
• ‘Wilson’s claims will remain valid whether or not Wilson persuades us that it is entitled to the range of equivalents sought here.”
• patentee may not assert a range of equivalents for infringement purposes that includes the prior art

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).