Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): limit, or condition the promise not to sue as to Atlantech, which was the only party before the district court charged with infringement. Future disputes relating to Atlantech’s successors in interest and others in privity with Atlantech are just that-future disputes. They must be left to future cases and are not ripe for consideration in this case. See Amana, 172 F.3d at 855-56; Super Sack, 57 F.3d at 1060; Spectronics Corp. v. H.B. Fuller Co., 940 F.2d 631, 637-38 (Fed.Cir.1991). Once Inline made its unconditional promise not to sue Atlantech, the case or controversy at the center of the lawsuit became nonjusticiable, and any apprehension on Atlantech’s part that it would face further claims of infringement of Inline’s asserted patents was eliminated. Super Sack, 57 F.3d at 1059 (<HOLDING>). The filing by Inline of its motion to dismiss 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs unconditional agreement not to sue defendant for infringement based upon any product then manufactured by defendant rendered noninfringement and invalidity counterclaims nonjusticiable (B) holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue (C) holding that plaintiffs infringement claim against defendants laterdeveloped product would be barred by laches and estoppel found applicable to earlier product if subsequent product is equivalent to earlier one under doctrine of equivalents (D) holding a covenant not to sue mooted a counterclaim of trademark invalidity notwithstanding the lack of an admission or finding of liability (E) holding that if plaintiffs could not establish that the particular agent orange causing injury to the plaintiff was manufactured by that defendant then the burden would shift to each defendant to establish that its product could not have caused the plaintiffs injury or alternatively that it should only be responsible for a proportion of the damage
Output (English): holding that plaintiffs infringement claim against defendants laterdeveloped product would be barred by laches and estoppel found applicable to earlier product if subsequent product is equivalent to earlier one under doctrine of equivalents