Filewrapper®

Category: Prosecution history estoppel


Estoppel applies to all added limitations in claims, including when present in unamended claims
April 15, 2009
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary of no literal infringement and that prosecution history estoppel barred application of the doctrine of equivalents. During prosecution of the patent, a total of three limitations from two different dependent claims were added to the asserted claim in separate amendments, although only two of the limitations were addressed .......
Read More


Irreparable harm to exclusive licensee cannot support injunction; willfulness vacated post-Seagate
August 20, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision Monday, the Federal Circuit addressed a range of issues and ultimately affirmed a district court's denial of injunctive relief and, in light of the intervening Seagate decision, vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration regarding willfulness. The court also affirmed the district court's finding of no invalidity and the infringement of some claims under the doctrine of equivalents. .......
Read More


Claim construction and noninfringement affirmed on one patent, vacated on another
May 13, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of one patent and affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement of another. The determinations turned on the construction of one claim element in each patent.In the first patent, the court held that there was sufficient disclosure in the specification to permit the broader construction of the c.......
Read More


Patentee could not rebut presumption of estoppel; noninfringement finding affirmed
April 21, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision holding that application of the doctrine of equivalents was barred as the Festo presumptions had not been rebutted. The court noted that the patentee did not show that the alleged equivalent was unforeseeable at the time of making the narrowing amendment (which was the cancellation of an independent claim and rewriting a dependent claim.......
Read More


If ordinary meaning of claim term does not resolve disputed construction, court must construe term
April 10, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a jury's finding of willful infringement case back to a district court, based on errors in claim construction and application of the doctrine of equivalents. The district court's original Markman hearing determined that no construction was necessary for a particular claim term, "only if," whose scope was disputed by the parties. .......
Read More


Dependent claim can be construed to be broader than independent claim based on prosecution history
March 03, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit held a district court construed 1 of 2 claim terms correctly, and incorrectly concluded that prosecution history estoppel barred application of the doctrine of equivalents to a third claim term because the narrowing amendment was only tangentially related to the equivalent at issue. As a result, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.One of the cla.......
Read More


Request to stay injunction pending appeal may also be considered notice of appeal; estoppel bars DOE
February 12, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit reversed a jury's verdict of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The court had previously vacated-in-part and reversed-in-part the district court's earlier summary judgment of infringement, the result of which was the jury trial conducted by the district court. The combination of the Federal Circuit's mandate in the earlier appeal and applicat.......
Read More


Pre-KSR obviousness instruction does not result in plain error post-KSR
January 10, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision this week, the Federal Circuit affirmed findings of infringement of two patents by two defendants. The court also reversed an invalidity ruling of one of one claim that had been the subject of reexamination, but remanded the case to the district court for a determination of the obviousness of one claim based on a revised claim construction and for a determination of damages.While the case went to t.......
Read More


Patentee need not join in appeal for exclusive licensee to retain standing
October 14, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision that prosecution history estoppel barred application of the doctrine of equivalents, and accordingly affirmed the district court's summary judgment of no infringement.The court also held, as a matter of first impression, that when joinder of the patent owner is required before the district court for an exclusive licensee to have pru.......
Read More


"Comprised of" means the same as "comprising," judgment of noninfringement affirmed
September 27, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
Today, the Federal Circuit addressed how to interpret the phrase "comprised of" in a patent claim. In holding that the phrase should be construed in the same open-ended way the term "comprising" is traditionally construed, the court disagreed with the district court's finding that the phrase was closed-ended and excluded the presence of all elements beyond those presented. However, the d.......
Read More


Claim construction and noninfringement finding affirmed; prosecution history estoppel bars DOE
September 12, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of a patent relating to a "gutter guard" designed to keep debris out of gutters. The court found the district court's claim construction correct, as it properly considered dictionary definitions when the specification provided no additional guidance on the meaning of the term "w.......
Read More


Equivalent can be "foreseeable" and thus barred under Festo even when equivalence unknown in the art
July 05, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
Today, the Federal Circuit rendered the latest decision in the nearly 20 year saga of Festo. The court refined the rules set forth by the Supreme Court in its Festo decision, specifically when an equivalent is unforeseeable, and thus not barred by prosecution history estoppel. The majority of the panel held that:an alternative is foreseeable if it is disclosed in the pertinent prior art in the field of the inve.......
Read More


Same terms, same meanings, unless specification indicates otherwise
April 27, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
In an appeal by Porta Stor, Inc. of a judgment in favor of PODS, Inc. for, among other things, patent and copyright infringement, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of patent infringement finding no literal infringement and finding that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was barred by prosecution history estoppel. The court also reversed the grant of judgment as a matter of law on copyright .......
Read More


Equivalent not tangentially related to amendment, doctrine of equivalents unavailable
March 20, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
In a case coming before the Federal Circuit for the second time, the court reversed a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because of prosecution history estoppel. The court rejected the patentee's argument that the amendment was only tangentially related to the equivalent, thus the Festo presumption of surrender of equivalents was not rebutted, and not infringement was found. Judge Rade.......
Read More


Comparison of Commercial Products not the vehicle to analyze equivalence
February 27, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
In a second appearance before the Federal Circuit, AquaTex again appealed a decision of the District Court that Techniche Solutions' Cooling Apparel did not infringe their U.S. Patent No. 6,371,977 for a protective multi-layered liquid retaining composition. The Federal Circuit had previously affirmed the lower court's finding of no literal infringement while remanding the case back to the District Court for furt.......
Read More


View all Filewrapper® Posts

Search Posts

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.