Kemnetz: Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis Petitioner Brief Debate

Pro-Petitioner Brief Side

Narrow doctrine of equivalence:

1. Claim language matters
2. 6-9pH, ours worked when theirs wouldn't (under 6 pH)
3. Don't get rid of the doctrine, but element-by-element application will narrow the effects.

Pro-Respondent Brief Side

Statutory interpretation:

1. Doctrine not explicitly removed --> keep traditional form
2. Needs to be element-by-element analysis, keep it to a case-by-case basis, factual analysis
3. Not growing claims (unbounded claims), but are the differences insubstantial?
   1. Are the property boundaries off by an inch? or half of the yard?