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

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 12:36, 30 March 2011 by Kristen kemnetz (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

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?