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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 50 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 Freedman Seating Co. v. American Seating Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Freedman Seating Co. v. American Seating Co. Anchor | green | “courts must consider the totality of the circumstances of each case and determine whether the alleged equivalent can be fairly characterized as an insubstantial change from the claimed subject matter without rendering the pertinent limitation meaningless.” | 27 |
| 2 | Freedman Seating Co. v. American Seating Co. | green | “an accused product or process is not infringing unless it contains each limitation of the claim, either literally or by an equivalent.” | 15 |
| 3 | Dr. Raymond G. Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc. | green | “generally conical outer surface” | 8 |
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.