Kemnetz: Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis Petitioner Brief Debate
From Bill Goodwine's WikiJump to navigationJump to search
Pro-Petitioner Brief Side
Narrow doctrine of equivalence:
- Claim language matters
- 6-9pH, ours worked when theirs wouldn't (under 6 pH)
- Don't get rid of the doctrine, but element-by-element application will narrow the effects.
Pro-Respondent Brief Side
- Doctrine not explicitly removed --> keep traditional form
- Needs to be element-by-element analysis, keep it to a case-by-case basis, factual analysis
- Not growing claims (unbounded claims), but are the differences insubstantial?
- Are the property boundaries off by an inch? or half of the yard?