context: Plaintiffs challenge these conclusions, noting that there were similar complaints about the Eldridge device. In sum, whether the Eldridge device "embodies" the Tanges device and is superior to it are questions of fact which must be decided by the jury.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 775 F.2d 1107, 1117
citation_a.parenthetical: in infringement action, determination of whether devices operate in substantially different ways and accomplish similar functions is a question of fact and is inappropriately decided on summary judgment
citation_a.sentence: See Carbo-Frost, supra, 103 F.2d at 220 (finder of fact must compare and contrast the nature of the different devices); cf. SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107, 1117 (Fed.Cir.1985) (in infringement action, determination of whether devices operate in substantially different ways and accomplish similar functions is a question of fact and is inappropriately decided on summary judgment).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 103 F.2d 220, 220
citation_b.parenthetical: finder of fact must compare and contrast the nature of the different devices
citation_b.sentence: See Carbo-Frost, supra, 103 F.2d at 220 (finder of fact must compare and contrast the nature of the different devices); cf. SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107, 1117 (Fed.Cir.1985) (in infringement action, determination of whether devices operate in substantially different ways and accomplish similar functions is a question of fact and is inappropriately decided on summary judgment).