Kemnetz: Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis Petitioner Brief Debate: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Created page with " == 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,..." |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 16:34, 30 March 2011
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
Statutory interpretation:
- 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, but are the differences insubstantial?
