If ordinary meaning of claim term does not resolve disputed construction, court must construe term 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," […] Continue Reading →
Dependent claim can be construed to be broader than independent claim based on prosecution history 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 […] Continue Reading →
Request to stay injunction pending appeal may also be considered notice of appeal; estoppel bars DOE 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 […] Continue Reading →
Claims requiring an “insert” do not cover products with similar structure not “inserted” In a decision Wednesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling granting summary judgment of non-infringement. At the outset, the court noted the patent at issue had been before the court multiple times, and the claim terms at issue in this appeal had already been construed by the court in earlier cases.As the district […] Continue Reading →
Pre-KSR obviousness instruction does not result in plain error post-KSR 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 […] Continue Reading →
Triangular opening not equivalent to vertical slit; summary judgment of no infringement affirmed Today the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's determination that the patent claim term "closeable vertical opening" required a slit-like shape that is perpendicular to the pan of the horizon instead of simply an opening with a shape that is taller than it is wide. Further, the court found that an accused product which creates […] Continue Reading →
Application of doctrine of equivalents to range limitation in claim does not vitiate the limitation In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's claim construction, but reversed its rulings regarding the sufficiency of notice of infringement and the applicability of the doctrine of equivalents. Regarding sufficiency of notice under 35 U.S.C. 287(a), the court held that while the patentee did not mark its products, its notice of […] Continue Reading →
Infringement finding and denial of permanent injunction in favor of ongoing royalty affirmed In a decision today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict finding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of a patent relating to hybrid engines used in motor vehicles. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of a permanent injunction and its award of an ongoing royalty on infringing vehicles, rejecting the argument that […] Continue Reading →
Patentee need not join in appeal for exclusive licensee to retain standing 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 […] Continue Reading →
“Comprised of” means the same as “comprising,” judgment of noninfringement affirmed 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 […] Continue Reading →