Task: Text Completion
Input (English): Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (per curiam), LifeNet did not pursue an attribution theory at trial. LifeCell posits that the non-removal limitation cannot be met until an independent third party, such as a surgeon, actually prepares and uses the accused products, and it is unknown at the time that LifeCell sells a graft if and how that graft will be used for transplantation. LifeNet counters that “the final product that leaves LifeCell’s hands is complete and ... infringes in that condition” without affirmative action by a third party. Response Br. 44. We agree with LifeNet. Functional limitations recited in the negative may describe a capability or structural element. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>). Here, the preceding language in each asserted 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that allegations of isolated acts of fraud occurring over an eighteenmonth period did not meet the continuity element (B) holding that nonnaturally occurring and not isolated were structural elements defining the source of the claimed material rather than steps for obtaining it (C) recognizing code rather than state law as the  genesis of an oversecured creditors entitlement to interest out of estate assets regardless of the source of the hen  (D) holding that effect of suit rather than the purpose for which it was brought is controlling for purposes of the fifth factor (E) holding that the tax was not direct even though the government imposed it on the estate rather than the recipient
Output (English): (B)