1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997). Alternatively, under the function-way-result test, an element in the accused device is equivalent to a claim limitation if it “performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result.” Schoell v. Regal Marine Indus., Inc., 247 F.3d 1202, 1209-10 (Fed.Cir.2001). “Where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could determine two elements to be equivalent,” summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is proper. Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 39 n. 8, 117 S.Ct. 1040. Summary judgment has been rejected because of conflicting expert testimony on the application of the function-way-result test. Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Bev. Can Co., 559 F.3d 1308, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). III. NETAPP’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
holding that it is function of trial court to judge witnesses credibility and to weigh conflicting evidence holding that it is trial courts function to evaluate witness credibility and weigh conflicting evidence holding that the necessity of choosing between the appellants two conflicting versions of a material fact does not defeat summary judgment holding that conflicting expert evidence regarding function establishes material issue of fact holding plenary hearings are required when there are contested issues of material fact on the basis of conflicting affidavits