Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 644, 646 (Fed.Cir.1994). However, “[mjany, if not most, suits for patent infringement give rise to numerous and complex fact issues, rendering those suits inappropriate for summary disposition.” Union Carbide Corp. v. Am. Can Co., 724 F.2d 1567, 1571 (Fed.Cir.1984). An issue of material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Where the party opposing summary judgment raises a genuine issue of material fact by proffering expert testimony in conflict with the positions of the moving party, summary judgment is properly denied. See, e.g., Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bancorp Serv., L.L.C., 527 F.3d 1330, 1338-39 (Fed.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). In determining whether summary judgment is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when a plaintiff seeking an injunction raises a genuine issue of fact material to the defendant governments claim regarding its justification for a policy summary judgment is inappropriate (B) holding that the original pto declarations create a genuine issue of material fact (C) holding the conflict in expert declarations created a genuine issue of materi al fact that made summary judgment inappropriate (D) holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment (E) holding summary judgment inappropriate to resolve an essentially procedural conflict
Output (English): holding that the original pto declarations create a genuine issue of material fact