Equivalents. As a jury has been demanded, only a jury can resolve the conflicting views of the experts in this non-obvious and extremely complicated patent dispute. “Summary judgment is as available in patent cases as in other areas of litigation.” See Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., .948 F.2d 1264, 1265 (Fed.Cir.1991) (citation omitted); see also Bayer AG v. Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corporation, 212 F.3d 1241 (Fed.Cir.2000); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795 (Fed.Cir.1999). However, I tend to agree with those of my confreres who have held that, in general, summary judgment is appropriate only in cases where the technology at issue is relatively simple and straightforward. See Amhil Enterprises, Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554 (Fed.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Palumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969
holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact holding that summary judgment was appropriate because no genuine issue of material fact existed and no expert testimony was required to explain the nature of the patented invention but observing that district courts should approach summary judgment motions in patent cases with great care holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment since the physical evidence and unrebutted expert testimony left no genuine issue of material fact holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate