Claim construction and noninfringement finding affirmed; prosecution history estoppel bars DOE 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 […] Continue Reading →
Statements in specification lead to narrower claim construction and noninfringement In a decision on Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision granting summary judgment of noninfringement. The only claim at issue required motors to apply a "pushing" force. The defendant's motors applied a "pulling" force that was, through intermediate apparatus, translated to a "pushing" force, but the court held that the patentee had […] Continue Reading →
Equivalent can be “foreseeable” and thus barred under Festo even when equivalence unknown in the art 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 […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit finds disclosure not public use because invention not actually “used” In a decision today, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's finding of invalidity of two patents based on the public use bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). A product capable of embodying the claimed inventions was disclosed to several individuals, including potential investors, before the critical date of the patents. The court nevertheless found […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit issues short opinion on claim construction, even shorter mention of claim vitiation The Federal Circuit today issued a brief, five-page opinion regarding claim construction and infringement issues relating to a patent on insulated shipping containers. The court affirmed the lower court's claim construction and, as a result, affirmed the summary judgment of noninfringement. The court also dispensed with the doctrine of equivalents in a single sentence, making […] Continue Reading →
Same terms, same meanings, unless specification indicates otherwise 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 […] Continue Reading →
Equivalent not tangentially related to amendment, doctrine of equivalents unavailable 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 […] Continue Reading →
Comparison of Commercial Products not the vehicle to analyze equivalence 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 […] Continue Reading →
“Critical” ratio in claim does not get the benefit of the doctrine of equivalents Today’s lesson from the Federal Circuit: be careful not to make a claim limitation “critical,” or you may lose the benefit of the doctrine of equivalents for that element. The court found that the claimed weight ratio of two drugs was critical in part because other claims recited a range of ratios, but the claim […] Continue Reading →
Showing a strong Spine, the Federal Circuit addresses the Doctrine of Equivalents In DuPuy Spin, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment of non-infringement on Medtronics Vertex? model with regards to U.S. Patent No. 5,207,678 (the ‘678 patent). Additionally, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court’s judgment of non-infringement for Medtronics bottom-loaded screw device […] Continue Reading →