Doctrine of Equivalents not limited by foreseeability of the structure In determining the scope of patent protection under a patent, the claims are construed literally to determine whether the accused product infringes the patent’s claims. If infringement is not literally found, then a determination is made whether those elements or limitations not literally found in the … [Read more...]
Doctrine of Equivalents
The Doctrine of Equivalents is means of finding direct infringement even though the accused product or method does not literally infringe the patent claim or incorporate all of the limitations recited in the patent claim. Infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents is found if the accused product incorporates a feature that is insubstantially different from the missing limitation.
No doctrine of equivalents for narrowing amendment Integrated Technology Corporation (ITC) v. Rudolph (Fed. Cir. November 4, 2013) is a straightforward application of the rule from the Festo case and its exceptions. Under Festo, prosecution history estoppel prevents a patentee from recapturing, under the doctrine of equivalents, subject matter which the applicant … [Read more...]
The following case illustrates my propensity for limiting my use of what patent attorneys call the means plus function claim limitation. There are particular uses for means plus function limitations but more often than not, they seem to be more trouble than they are worth. I will go over some instances where I think that they are useful down below. Background of means plus … [Read more...]
As previously discussed in “Avoiding Patent Infringement,” the claims define the metes and bounds of patent protection afforded under a patent. The claims can be infringed either literally which means that the alleged infringer practiced the claimed invention without any deviation. If the alleged infringer practiced a variation of the claimed invention, then liability for … [Read more...]
In Planet Bingo LLC v. GameTech International Inc., 81 USPQ2d 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Federal Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision of non-infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents because determining a winning combination after a first ball in a bingo game is drawn is substantially different from determining a winning combination before drawing the first bingo … [Read more...]