Blog March 23, 2020
No foreseeability exception to doctrine of equivalents
- Person title
The Fed. Cir. reverses a district court for failing to enforce a party's stipulation that, should the doctrine of equivalents apply, the accused product would infringe by equivalence. The Fed. Cir. remanded for entry of judgment of infringement. The district court rejected accused infringer R&P's argument that the doctrine of equivalents could not capture equivalents foreseeable when the claims were prepared. The district court held that finding equivalence would vitiate the limitation in question, and so entered summary judgment of noninfringement.
Ring & Pinion Service, Inc. v. ARB Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2014) (MOORE, Clevenger, Reyna) (W.D. Wash.) (1 of 5 stars)
Foreseeability and the DOE: The Fed. Cir. confirmed that there is no foreseeability exception to the doctrine of equivalents. "There is not, nor has there ever been, a foreseeability limitation on the application of the doctrine of equivalents." Slip op. at 4. After distinguishing "equivalence" when assessing literal infringement of means-plus-function limitations from "equivalence" under the doctrine of equivalents, the Fed. Cir. ruled that there is no precedent supporting "a foreseeability exception to the doctrine of equivalents that applies to means-plus-function or any other claim terms." Id. at 7.
Vitiation: "Vitiation is 'not an exception to the doctrine of equivalents, but instead a legal determination that the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could determine two elements to be equivalent.'" Id. at 9. Here, the parties' stipulation established equivalence, so the doctrine of vitiation did not apply. The Fed. Cir. also rejected R&P's argument that ARB had waived its ability to have the stipulation enforced when ARB did not discuss the stipulation in certain supplemental briefing.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog November 4, 2019
Legal Alert: Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. - What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog November 4, 2019
Legal Alert | Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. — What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog August 17, 2018
En Banc Federal Circuit: Patentee's Service of Complaint, Followed by Voluntary Dismissal, Triggers IPR Clock
Blog October 5, 2017
Legal Alert: Federal Circuit Faults PTO's Approach to Claim Amendments During IPR, But Allows PTO to Try to Fix the Problem
Blog May 16, 2016
Software Claims Directed to Specific Improvements in Computer Operations May be "Non-Abstract"
Blog May 2, 2016
Corporate Residence Definition in Patent Cases Unchanged by Congressional Revisions to Venue Statute; Minimum Contacts Under Beverly Hills Fan Reaffirmed
Blog April 11, 2016
Claims Directed to Detection of Gene Variants Patent-Ineligible, Notwithstanding Mental Activity Requirement
Blog July 27, 2015
Judicial Review Available for Decision that a Patent Qualified for CBM Review; § 101 Review Appropriate in CBM Review
Blog July 8, 2015
Software Claim Addressing Concepts Long Known in Other Fields and Lacking Other Inventive Concept Is Not Patent Eligible
Blog May 19, 2023
Legal Alert: Amgen v. Sanofi
Blog May 16, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: April 2023
Blog May 15, 2023
Legal Alert: Minimizing Patent TRO and PI Risk in Europe
Blog May 12, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: April 2023
Blog April 18, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: March 2023
Blog April 10, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: March 2023
Blog February 10, 2023
President Biden Signs "Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022" Into Law
Blog February 7, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2023
Article January 4, 2023
Attorneys Daniel Tishman and Joshua Rosefelt Author "ITC Year in Review" Article in IPWatchdog
Blog January 4, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: December 2022