Infringement & the Doctrine of Infringement & the Doctrine of Equivalents IIEquivalents II
Class Notes: March 4, 2003Class Notes: March 4, 2003
Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003
Professor WagnerProfessor Wagner
03/04/0303/04/03 22Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
Today’s AgendaToday’s Agenda
1.1. The All-Elements-RuleThe All-Elements-Rule
2.2. The DOE and Means-Plus-Function The DOE and Means-Plus-Function
ClaimsClaims
03/04/0303/04/03 33Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
Review: Review: Warner-JenkinsonWarner-Jenkinson, n.8, n.8
With regard to the concern over With regard to the concern over unreviewability due to black-box jury unreviewability due to black-box jury verdicts.… Where the evidence is such verdicts.… Where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could determine that no reasonable jury could determine two elements to be equivalent, district two elements to be equivalent, district courts are obliged to grant partial or courts are obliged to grant partial or complete summary judgment.… [U]nder complete summary judgment.… [U]nder the particular facts of a case, … the particular facts of a case, … if a if a theory of equivalence would entirely theory of equivalence would entirely vitiate a particular claim element, partial vitiate a particular claim element, partial or complete judgment should be rendered or complete judgment should be rendered by the courtby the court, as there would be no further , as there would be no further material issue for the jury to resolve. material issue for the jury to resolve.
03/04/0303/04/03 44Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
All-Elements RuleAll-Elements Rule
Basics of the All-Elements RuleBasics of the All-Elements Rule
1. A chair comprising,a seatat least three legsa back
1. For literal infringement, all elements must be present.
2. For DOE infringement, all elements must be present…though they need only be present “equivalently”
03/04/0303/04/03 55Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
All-Elements RuleAll-Elements RuleBasics of the All-Elements RuleBasics of the All-Elements Rule
1. A chair comprising,a seatat least three legsa back
For DOE infringement, all elements must be present…For DOE infringement, all elements must be present…though they need only be present “equivalently”.though they need only be present “equivalently”.
• Note: Warner-Jenkinson referred to this rule as one that disallowed “vitiation” of claim language. (Thus, this is sometimes referred to as ‘vitiation’ approach to DOE analysis.)
• Recall that this had been the rule of the Federal Circuit since 1987.
03/04/0303/04/03 66Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
The All-Elements RuleThe All-Elements RuleDolly v Spaulding & Dolly v Spaulding &
EvenfloEvenflo (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Rader)(Rader)• Key claim element: “a
stable rigid frame…”• Evenflo makes a chair
that uses the side panels, plus the seat and back panels, as the frame.
Consider:• Claim construction• Why no DOE
infringement?• What is the ‘rule’ of
Dolly?
03/04/0303/04/03 77Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
The All-Elements RuleThe All-Elements RuleWeiner v NEC ElectronicsWeiner v NEC Electronics (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Rader) (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Rader)
• Claim: required data in ‘columns,’ which was interpreted to require data on the chip to be stored in columns.
• The accused device stored data in columns, but only on an external data register.
Sage ProductsSage Products (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Rader) (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Rader)• The claim language required “an elongated slot at the top
of the container body”• The accused device had a slot (if at all) within the body
(not the top).
What is the rule of What is the rule of Dolly/Weiner/SageDolly/Weiner/Sage? ?
Note Note EthiconEthicon, on page 7-8, ‘limits’ , on page 7-8, ‘limits’ D/W/SD/W/S to their facts. to their facts. (What does this mean? Is this helpful? Now what?)(What does this mean? Is this helpful? Now what?)
03/04/0303/04/03 88Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
The All-Elements RuleThe All-Elements Rule
Considering the Vitiation ApproachConsidering the Vitiation Approach
1. A fastening system comprising• A two-inch long bolt• A corresponding nut with five sides• Wherein the nut includes an insert of plastic material
• Device A: same system, except bolt is 2.5 Device A: same system, except bolt is 2.5 inches long.inches long.
• Device B: same system, except the insert is corkDevice B: same system, except the insert is cork
Do the differences above “vitiate” the element? Do the differences above “vitiate” the element?
Or are they “equivalent” to the element?Or are they “equivalent” to the element?
03/04/0303/04/03 99Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
The All-Elements RuleThe All-Elements RuleConsidering Vitiation, continued…Considering Vitiation, continued…
Which of these claims has more Which of these claims has more elements/limitations?elements/limitations?
Which is easier to avoid for infringement Which is easier to avoid for infringement purposes?purposes?
1. A fastening system 1. A fastening system
comprising:comprising:
a two-inch long bolt
a corresponding nut with five
angled sides
1.1. A fastening system A fastening system
comprising:comprising:
a bolt,a bolt,
said bolt being two inches in
length, and
a corresponding nut,
said nut having five angled
sides
03/04/0303/04/03 1010Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
The DOE and Means-Plus-Function The DOE and Means-Plus-Function ClaimsClaims
35 USC § 112 ¶ 635 USC § 112 ¶ 6An element in a claim for a combination may be An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the structure, material, or acts described in the specification and specification and equivalentsequivalents thereof. thereof.
1.1. What does ‘literal’ (statutory) infringement of What does ‘literal’ (statutory) infringement of a MPF claim element look like?a MPF claim element look like?
2.2. What does DOE infringement look like?What does DOE infringement look like?
03/04/0303/04/03 1111Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
The DOE and Means-Plus-Function The DOE and Means-Plus-Function ClaimsClaims
Chiuminatta Concrete ConceptsChiuminatta Concrete Concepts (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Lourie)(Lourie)
Means connected to the saw for supporting the surface of the concrete adjacent [to] the leading edge of the cutting blade to inhibit chipping, spalling, or cracking of the concrete surface during cutting.
• Is this an MPF claim element? (Why?)• What is the ‘corresponding structure”?
03/04/0303/04/03 1212Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
The DOE and Means-Plus-Function The DOE and Means-Plus-Function ClaimsClaims
ChiuminattaChiuminatta, continued…, continued…• Does the accused device (wheels) infringe
literally? Under DOE?• How does Chiuminatta distinguish between
112 ¶ 6 equivalents and DOE equivalents?
Type of Infringement Coverage Why it fails
Literal skid plates wheels ≠ skid plates
112 ¶ 6 equivalents equivalents of skid plates wheels are not“insubstantially” differentfrom skid plates
DOE equivalents after-arising technologythat is e quivalent to skidplates
wheels are not “afterarising” technology.
03/04/0303/04/03 1313Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
The DOE and Means-Plus-Function The DOE and Means-Plus-Function ClaimsClaims
Odetics v Storage TechnologyOdetics v Storage Technology (Fed. (Fed. Cir. 1999)Cir. 1999)• Claim element: ‘rotary means,
rotably mounted…’• What is the corresponding
structure?
‘‘151 Patent151 Patent Accused Accused DeviceDevice
BinsBins Bins Bins
Axis of RotationAxis of Rotation Axis of Axis of RotationRotation
GearGear Pins Pins
A jury found infringement. Why did A jury found infringement. Why did the district court enter JMOL?the district court enter JMOL?
03/04/0303/04/03 1414Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
The DOE and Means-Plus-Function The DOE and Means-Plus-Function ClaimsClaims
OdeticsOdetics, continued…, continued…• How does Odetics distinguish between 112 ¶
6 and DOE equivalents?• Recall the test:
o Equivalent functiono Equivalent wayo Equivalent result
• What ‘function’ does a 112 ¶ 6 element perform? (Literally? Equivalently?)
• Why not consider equivalence on a component-by-component basis?
03/04/0303/04/03 1515Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
The DOE and Means-Plus-Function The DOE and Means-Plus-Function ClaimsClaims
The Chiuminatta and Odetics ApproachesThe Chiuminatta and Odetics Approaches
Type of Infringement Coverage: Chiuminatta Coverage: Odetics
Literal Structural/functionalidentity
Structural/functionalidentity
112 ¶ equivalents pre-existing structuralequivalents
structure with identical“function”, equivalent “way”and “result”
DOE equivalents after-arising structuralequivalents
structure with equivalent“function”, “way”, and“result”
03/04/0303/04/03 1616Law 677 | Spring 2003Law 677 | Spring 2003
Next ClassNext Class
Infringement & the Doctrine of Infringement & the Doctrine of Equivalents III Equivalents III
Prosecution History Estoppel Prosecution History Estoppel
Prior Art Limits on DOE Prior Art Limits on DOE
Reverse DOE Reverse DOE