Estoppel applies to all added limitations in claims, including when present in unamended claims 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 […] Continue Reading →
Irreparable harm to exclusive licensee cannot support injunction; willfulness vacated post-Seagate 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 […] Continue Reading →
Claim construction and noninfringement affirmed on one patent, vacated on another 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 […] Continue Reading →
Patentee could not rebut presumption of estoppel; noninfringement finding affirmed 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 […] Continue Reading →
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 →
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 →
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 →