7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 40 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 Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant Anchor | green | “the doctrine of equivalents prevents an accused infringer from avoiding infringement by changing only minor or insubstantial details of a claimed invention while retaining their essential functionality.” | 11 |
| 2 | Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co. | green | “a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires a showing that the difference between the claimed invention and the accused product was insubstantial.” | 8 |
| 3 | Sram Corp. v. Ad-Ii Engineering, Inc. | green | “when evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court views the record evidence through the prism of the evidentiary standard of proof that would pertain at a trial on the merits.” | 6 |
| 4 | Eli Lilly and Company v. Hospira, Inc. | green | “the patentee has the burden of proving infringement by a preponderance of the evidence.” | 5 |
| 5 | Indivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, S.A. | green | “an infringement analysis has two steps.” | 4 |
| 6 | Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc. | green | “whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the united states . . . infringes the patent.” | 3 |
| 7 | Eli Lilly and Company v. Hospira, Inc. | green | “patent infringement is principally determined by examining whether the accused subject matter falls within the scope of the claims.” | 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.