Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 20 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Insituform Technologies, Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Insituform Technologies, Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc. Anchor | green | “a process using only one vacuum cup which inherently creates a discontinuous vacuum.” | 5 |
| 2 | Amstar Corporation v. Envirotech Corporation and Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. | green | “infringement cannot be avoided by the mere fact that the accused device is more or less efficient or performs additional functions” | 4 |
| 3 | Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. | green | “in applying the doctrine of equivalents, it is often enough to assess whether the claimed and accused products or processes included substantially the same function, way, and result.” | 4 |
| 4 | McCullough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc. | green | “connected by a flexible hose to a vacuum source” | 4 |
| 5 | Insituform Technologies, Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc. | green | “the prosecution history does not estop insituform from asserting that the right to exclude extends broadly enough to cover either process 1 or process 2,” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.