Bill Goodwine's Wiki - User contributions [en]

Quanta Brief - 901425018

2011-04-29T15:38:39Z

Kriester:

2007 WL 3440936
Supreme Court of the United States.
Appellate Brief (Approx. 6 pages)

Question: Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding, in conflict with decisions of this Court and other courts of appeals, that respondent's patent rights were not exhausted by its license agreement with Intel Corporation, and Intel's subsequent sale of product under the license to petitioners.
*Basically, whether or not LGE's patent rights were exhausted by its license agreement with Intel.

Summary of Arguments: Under the Court's precedent, Inters licensed sales of microprocessors and chipsets exhausted LGE's patent rights. The scope of the question presented is narrowly focused to determine the exhaustion effect of Inters post-license sales under the LGE-Intel license. The scope of the question presented does not encompass other types of agreements that may, or may not, grant or convey patent rights, such as covenants not to sue and releases. Thus, the Court should limit its holding in this case only to the exhaustion effect under a license.
*Based on past rulings, Intel's sale did exhaust LGE's patent rights. The court should limit its ruling to just the exhaustion and not other types of agreements.

Conclusion: For the foregoing reasons, the Court should reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and in so doing, the Court should limit its holding to products sold pursuant to a license agreement.

Quanta Brief - 901425018

2011-04-29T15:33:15Z

Kriester: Created page with "2007 WL 3440936 Supreme Court of the United States. Appellate Brief (Approx. 6 pages)"

2007 WL 3440936
Supreme Court of the United States.
Appellate Brief (Approx. 6 pages)

Here in list of arguments in Quanta

2011-04-29T15:25:50Z

Kriester:

Post a link to your summary of the brief you read here.

[[Quanta Brief Summary 901330223]]

[[901349446 Quanta Brief]]

[[Quanta Brief Summary 901471466]]

[[Quanta Brief Summary 901422128]]

[[Quanta Brief Summary Jacob Marmolejo]]

[[Homework 8 (due Friday 28)~jnosal | Quanta Brief Summary 901438174]]

[[Mitros: Quanta Brief]]

[[Zahm Homework 31: Quanta Brief]]

[[901419437 Quanta v. LGE Brief Summary]]

[[Quanta Brief 901437068]]

[[901281608: Quanta Brief]]

[[901444263: Quanta v. LGE Reply Brief of Petitioners]]

[[901479977: Quanta for Petitioners]]

[[Apr. 29th: Brief Summary (2007 WL 3440937) - Andrew McBride]]

[[Quanta Brief Summary 901360293]]

[[Quanta Brief Summary 901431048]]

[[Quanta Brief Brobins]]

[[Quanta Brief hwong1]]

[[Quanta Brief: Tennant]]

[[Quanta Brief (John Gallagher)]]

[[Quanta brief - 901338276]]

[[Brief of Amici Curiae for Respondent - Eric Leis]]

[[Quanta Brief - Kschlax]]

[[Quanta Brief - Christine Roetzel]]

[[Quanta Brief: In support of Federal Circuit Ruling (eguilbea)]]

[[Quanta Brief - 901425018]]

Doctrine of Equivalents Case List

2011-04-04T13:31:31Z

Kriester:

Add your case to the list with a one-paragraph (approximately 250 words) summary of the facts at issues, i.e., "an umbrella is or is not equivalent to a parasol because..."

Please put the cases in chronological order. If two are from the same year, then put them in alphabetical order. Also put your name, your login name or NDID number with your case. Use the following for a template.

* Goodwine v. Batill, 123 US 4567 (1066)
This case concerned a patent for an iPad and the patentee sued the maker of an iPod for infringement. The important part of the claim was "a device for playing music and other media comprising a touch screen..." The court held that iPod infringed the iPad patent because the ... was equivalent to the ... because ...

Patrick Lane (901431645)
* Union Paper-Bag Machine Company v. Murphy (1877)
In this case, the patents in question were machines used to make paper bags. The machines are loaded with large rolls of paper and then stamp out the bag pattern, or "blanks," which are then folded and pasted to make a paper bag. Union Paper was granted a patent in 1859 for this type of machine which used a long, straight knife which would move up and down to punch the pattern out of the paper. In 1874, Murphy was granted a patent for a similar device that used a serrated knife which cut the paper from below as the rolls moved over it. Union is suing Murphy for infringement, claiming the devices which cut the paper in each machine are substantially equivalent, and therefore are under protection by Union's 1859 patent. Murphy argued that the serrated knife is an improvement over the straight knife, and that the method of cutting was different enough to constitute patent protection. However, the expert witness explained that the paper is essentially being cut in the same way in each device: a fast moving, sharp edge is slicing through the paper. Even though one knife was serrated, the cutting occurs in the same mechanical fashion, and therefore is equivalent. The court found in favor of Union, stating that the two methods of cutting the blanks were substantially equal because they performed the same function in the same way.
* I had also read this case. The above is a good summary, though perhaps also worth noting is the fact that the court made specific mention of the fact that changing the name of the invention had no bearing on its nonequivalence (though this seems pretty obvious). - Kurt Riester 901425018

hwong1
* Absolute Software Inc. v. Stealth Signal Inc.
The patents in question deal with security apparatus’ that are used to retrieve lost or stolen electronic devices. Absolute accused Stealth of infringing on their patent, and in effect Stealth filed a counterclaim stating that Absolute infringed on another prior art. Both companies filed for summary judgment stating that neither infringed on any patent. The doctrine of equivalence was used to determine if either company infringed on other patents. Absolute proves that It does not infringe on the prior art because the transmission message to the central site is not done at a semi-random rate. Absolute did not literally infringe, but the doctrine of equivalence was needed to verify. The courts found that since Absolute’s product makes the call to the central site every 24.5 hours, it is not ‘random’ by any means but rather ‘uniformly randomly distributed’. Thus, Absolute does not infringe on its prior art. Stealth was analyzed on in infringing on Absolute by the use of an XTool agent. Doctrine of Equivalence is again applied, finding that Stealth’s invention differed in providing a step at the end of the communication that Absolute does not have. Absolute has written in their claims on their Xtool agent “without signaling the visual or audible user interface.” Therefore, when Stealth created an audible user interface, it made its invention nonequivalent to Absolutes. Thus, Stealth is found to be non-infringing with their patent.

Bill Goodwine

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)
This case was discussed in class and presented by another student, but I read it as well. This case concerned a patent for a gyroscope owned by Adkins, the inventor of an improved gyroscope, and Lear, the company that sells gyroscopes. Lear and Adkins had a written agreement that allowed Lear to sell Adkin’s patented invention, where Adkins received a small percentage of the net sales price as royalties. In 1957, Lear refused to pay royalties to Adkins with the claim that they were selling gyroscopes that differed from Adkin’s invention. However, the “new” gyroscopes differed only in “size, form, and shape,” but “contain[ed] the same elements.” The essential elements were the same between Adkin’s patent and Lear’s other steel gyroscopes, but the scale and exact assembly was different. Since those did not constitute a substantial difference, the jury of the Supreme Court of California held Adkins in favor and required Lear to pay royalties to Adkins for the sales price of the other gyroscopes sold. This case is an example of clear infringement.

901431048

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968)(67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)
I am the other student^^^(see case above). Other items of note in the case, aside from the summary above, include that the court ruled that infringing the doctrine of equivalence is a matter of fact and that the jury should be the one to establish it. This brings up an interesting qualification, as it seems almost every other case considered with respect to the doctrine of equivalence was decided by judges, not juries.

Brobins

*AMEC Liquidating Trust v. IVAC Corporation, 885 F.2d 1574 (1989)

AMEC had a patent for a thermometer with a plastic cover held on by a hooking type mechanism. IVAC created a thermometer with a cover held on by a ring that created a friction lock. The CAFC held the IVAC invention was non-infringing on the AMEC patent because under the doctrine of equivalents, it did not perform the same function in the same way. The AMEC thermometer cover used an inscription fit, which created deep scratches in the cover. The IVAC thermometer used a friction fit, which only created superficial scratches in the cover. The CAFC found that the superficial scratches did not constitute an inscription fit. Also, the CAFC decided that AMEC did not present any evidence proving that the ring in the IVAC patent was equivalent to the “hook” in the AMEC patent. Because of this, the patent was non-infringing under the doctrine of equivalents.

901444263

*Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574 (1989)

The inventor, Turner, invented a thermometer probe cover that stays on (this was owned by AMEC). It kept the cover on via a sharp metal hook to tear into the cover’s plastic. IVAC developed a thermometer that served a similar purpose of keeping the probe cover on, except that it did so with a ring on the probe (to hold the cover via friction). IVAC intentionally left the probe free of any sharp edge to ease the removal of the probe cover when needed. District Court of Southern California ruled in summary judgment that IVAC’s thermometer probe covers do not infringe AMEC’s. On appeal from AMEC, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. A ring that does not tear the plastic cover is not equivalent to the hook that does. [http://campus.westlaw.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/result/default.wl?mt=CampusLaw&db=ALLCASES&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT4121840350313&origin=Search&sp=003654480-2000&method=TNC&cfid=1&rp=%2fwelcome%2fCampusLaw%2fdefault.wl&eq=welcome%2fCampusLaw&rltdb=CLID_DB1095239350313&srch=TRUE&query=TI(JOHNSTON+%26+IVAC)&vr=2.0&fmqv=s&action=Search&fn=_top&service=Search&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.01]

901471466

*Unitronics Ltd. v. Gharb, 318 Fed.Appx. 902 C.A.Fed. (Dist.Col.) (1989)

This case involved a patent for programmable logic controllers with Global System for Mobile communications. The main issue was infringement based on the capabilities of the programmable logic controllers (PLCs). The court held that alleged infringers PLCs did not contain a “digital recording device having at least one emergency message” or an equivalent. The alleged infringers PLCs also did not have the “data set for transmission to the mobile telephone including alarm information.” The court also ruled that they did not have anything equivalent to either of these claims. Based on the ruling in Warner-Jenkinson the device is not infringing unless it “contains each limitation of the claim, either literally or by an equivalent.” The alleged infringing PLCs did not have a similarity to all of the limitations to the claim and were thus allowed to continue selling their device. [[http://campus.westlaw.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/result/default.wl?mt=CampusLaw&db=ALLFEDS%2cALLSTATES%2cSCT&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT3654057332134&origin=Search&sp=003654480-2000&method=WIN&cfid=1&rp=%2fWelcome%2fCampusLaw%2fdefault.wl&eq=Welcome%2fCampusLaw&rltdb=CLID_DB3890056332134&srch=TRUE&query=unitronics+gharb&vr=2.0&fmqv=s&action=Search&fn=_top&service=Search&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.01]]

901479977

*Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates (1990)

Wilson is suing DGA/Dunlop for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of its patented design for a golf ball. Wilson's patent is for a golf ball modeled as an icosahedron with dimples placed in such a way as to have 6 "great circles" of symmetry instead of the typical 1. The patent specifies where dimples should be placed on the ball and requires that no dimples be placed on the great circles. The accused DGA balls use the same "great circles" design, but with dimples placed on the great circles. DGA's defense is that there is "no principled difference" between its design and a design of the prior art (prior to Wilson's patent). Therefore, allowing Wilson to utilize the doctrine of equivalents would extend protection of claims already in the prior art to Wilson's patent. The CAFC decided that Wilson can only utilize the doctrine of equivalents if it can make a hypothetical claim that literally covers Dunlop's design (in this case, claim a ball with dimples placed on the great circles) and is also nonobvious considering the prior art. Wilson is unable to make such a nonobvious hypothetical claim and therefore no infringement was found.

901338276

* Lemelson v. General Mills, Inc., 968 F.2d 1202 (1992)

Lemelson sued Mattel, alleging that Mattel's "Hot Wheels" toy car track infringed on his patented toy track. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found in favor of the plaintiff. Mattel appealed to the CAFC. The Court held that the "Hot Wheels" track did not contain all the limitations of the patent; it was equivalent to the prior art. That is, Lemelson's patent could not be both valid in light of the prior art and infringed upon by Mattel. Furthermore, upon his first application, claim 3 of Lemelson's patent had five clauses. The PTO examiner found the patent to be indistinguishable from the prior art. Lemelson added clauses [f] and [g] and received a patent. The important parts of the claim were, "[f] said guide means include a pair of spaced apart runner portions for defining the pathway of a vehicle moving over said track, [g] said spaced apart runner portions include upwardly extending rails for guiding the wheels of a vehicle." The Court held that "Hot wheels" did not contain any elements equivalent to the clauses [f] and [g]. The Court also noted that the public is entitled to the PTO record to determine the scope and meaning of claims.

901330223

*Valmont Industries Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Company Inc., 983 F.2d 1039 (1993)

901316153

This case concerns an adaption for center-pivot (i.e. rotating) irrigation systems. The adaption (an apparatus that attaches to the main frame of the sprinkler) allows the corners of a field, normally missed by the standard rotating irrigation system, to be watered. The infringement issue relates to the means by which the position of the sprinkler is detected, relative to the field. The patent uses a method of pivot angle encoders, while the "infringing" patent uses buried electromagnetic cables to guide the sprinkler around the field.

The CAFC ruled that the second device was not infringing, reversing the decision of the district court. The district court argued that the means of controlling the system were equivalent. The CAFC's argument was that while the two irrigation systems performed substantially the same overall function to obtain substantially the same overall result as the claimed invention, the way those results were achieved was substantially different. "Comparison of these two control means compels the conclusion that the claimed control means and Reinke's control means are not structurally equivalent.[...][E]ven though both the control means in the specification and the control means on Reinke's device use electric signals, the structures generating those signals are strikingly different."

Because the doctrine of equivalence requires that the two devices perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same results, the two control systems were not equivalent under the doctrine of equivalence because they did not meet the "way" requirement of the doctrine of equivalence.

*William Bradshaw and Robert Shepherd v. Igloo Products Corp. 1997 WL 543109 (US District Court, N.D.Ill.)

William Bradshaw sued Igloo Products for infringement of a wheeled cooler. Bradshaw’s patent was for a cooler with a pulling handle and two lifting handles, one of which was connected on the same axle as the pulling handle. The Igloo products in question were the Rolling Kool Locker which had a rotatable lifting hand that can also be used to pull the cooler and the Cool Roller which had separate lifting and pulling handles coupled to separate axles. The court decided that the prior art for the Cool Roller was a different patent, the Mason patent. This patent was for a wheeled cooler with separate lifting and pulling handles. The Mason patent was granted before Bradshaw’s patent. The court ruled that the Cool Roller fell under the Mason patent. Therefore, if Bradshaw’s patent were to be expanded to include the Cool Roller’s handles, it would be an invalid patent as a result of the prior art, the Mason patent. This leads to a method of deciding infringement. If the product in question mimics prior art, then it cannot infringe the patent otherwise that patent would be invalid. In deciding infringement for the Rolling Kool Locker, the court decided that it was up to a jury to decide whether the Kool Lockers handles were equivalent to Bradshaw’s patent, since there was no other glaring evidence.

Eric Paul

* Dr. Raymond G. Tronzo v. Biomet Inc. 1998 156 F.3d 1154 (United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit)
In this case Biomet was accused of infringement of an artificial hip prosthesis patented by Dr. Tronzo (patent 4,743,262). The alleged infringement revolved around the shape of the artificial hip socket and the hinge that was inserted into the socket. Patent ‘262 claimed a “generally conical” shape of the hip socket. Biomet’s design contained a strictly hemispherical shape. The court heard evidence in which it was claimed that even though the shapes would have at first glance performed in the same manner, the forces generated on the surface of each implant would be different depending on the shape. Additionally, after hearing expert testimony that suggested any shape would have been equivalent to the conical limitations of the patent claims, the court said that such a ruling would have been impermissible under the all-elements rule of Warner Jenkinson because it would write the “generally conical” shape limitation out of the claims. Therefore, the court held that the accused design did not infringe upon the patent claims under the doctrine of equivalence.

Peter Mitros (901461727)

*Hale Propeller, L.L.C. v Ryan Marine Products Pty., LTD., et al, 151 F. Supp .2d 183 (2001) Connecticut District Court
Ryan owned patent 4411073, issued on 25 October 1983, which concerned devices to measure the pitch of propeller blades. Ryan originally filed the claim on 13 July 1981 it was rejected and then ammended on 4 October 1982. Hale's device called the "Hale Propeller MRI" was developed in 1997. In question are claims 1(b),(c),(f), and 6. A third party, Michigan Wheel Corporation, a distributor of Hale's invention filed for patent invalidity. The important differences between Hale's and Ryan's device are that Hale's does not use gears or worm-drives to rotate the blade and the device does not give direct readouts of the measurements using electric circuits. The issue with claim 1(b) was if a roller was a necessary part of the structure because it prevents skipping of the probe making the measurements more accurate. The court used means-plus-function to rule that the roller was important and Hale did not infringe. The issue with claim 1(c) deals with whether a worm or gear drive is necessary to rotate the blade. Ryan's patent discloses a hand-cranked device, like Hales, but includes a worm-drive. Part of Ryan's ammendment to his claim was to include worm gear to the hand-cranking device and therefore the court used prosecution history estoppel to make their decision because Ryan forfeited that claim (hand-cranked device without worm-drive) in order to get the patent and therefore cannot use doctrine of equivalents to get the claim back. The issue of claim 1(f) was whether the computer in the claim was a special computer needed for the readouts. The court ruled that the claim was not that narrow, but then the court ruled that claim 6 dealt with a computer that receives measurement data from the optical encoder and therefore Hale did not infringe. The patent was also ruled valid using the roller and worm drive to prove that it was non-obvious §103, definitively disclosed §112, and not anticipated by prior art §102(b).

Gillian Allsup

901281608

*Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. Nos. 2010-1145, 2010-117. (2001) United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

This case began as an infringement lawsuit by Siemens Medical Solutions USA, inc. against Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics, Inc. for the alleged infringement of a patent held by Siemens for a scintillator, a part of an x-ray machine that detects radiation. Saint-Gobain owned a patent for a similar device and the circuit court found that this patent infringed on the patent held by Siemens, which was filed earlier. Though the doctrine of equivalents was used to rule infringement, Saint-Gobain was found to have accidentally, rather than willfully infringed and Siemens was awarded 52.3 million dollars.

Siemens filed for patent number 4,958,080 on August 4, 1989. This patent was for a scintillator containing cerium-doped- lutetium oxyorthosilicate. This is a component of a radiation detector that absorbs gamma-ray photons from an x-ray machine and converts them to visible light so the results can be interpreted. Saint-Gobain also produces scintillators, filing patent number 6,6424,420 in 2000 for a cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium orthosilicate. The chemical composition differs from that of the Siemens' patent as %10 of the lutetium is substituted for yttrium. These scintillators were sold by Saint-Gobain to Philips Medical Systems, a competitor of Siemens. The circuit court found that the composition of Saint-Gobain's scintillator preformed largely the same function in the same manner as Siemens' patent, and therefore was infringement under the doctrine of equivalence.

Saint-Gobain filed a motion for a new trail, on the basis that the jury was not told that infringement by the doctrine of equivalence must be proved by clear evidence and argued that damages should be remitted. The Federal Appeals Court did not grant Saint-Gobain a new trial, but did reduces the damages to 44 million.

*Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283 C.A.Fed. (Mich.), 2010
Adams Respiratory Therapeutics patented an extended release formulation of expectorant. The patent was for Mucinex and was new in that it allowed the expectorant (an aspect to medicine which promotes the discharge of phlegm or other fluid from the respiratory tract). Adams brought suit, alleging that generic manufacturer's (Perrigo's) proposed production and marketing of generic version of the product would infringe its patent. The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Gordon J. Quist, J., 2010 WL 565195, granted defendant summary judgment of non-infringement. Plaintiff appealed. Within the patent Adams specified an amount of expectorant in the drug using the words "at least." The court found that "at least" did not prevent the use of the doctrine of equivalents and that the doctrine may apply to patents with specific number ranges. Adams patent stated that it would have at least 3500 hr*ng/mL, while Perrigo was using 3494.38 hr*ng/mL (only a 0.189% difference). Adams argued that this number was not substantially different and thus should represent infringement. Perrigo argued that because the claim does not use words of approximation, Adams cannot expand this element to ensnare Perrigo's product. The court found that the fact that the claim does not contain words of approximation does not affect the analysis-“terms like ‘approximately’ serve only to expand the scope of literal infringement, not to enable application of the doctrine of equivalents.” The proper inquiry is whether the accused value is insubstantially different from the claimed value. Because the court found that there was not a substantial difference between the numbers the doctrine of equivalents applied, the order of the district court was vacated and the case was remanded.

Snooki

*Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Homedics, Inc., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 5230892 (2010)

This case involved a patent for a force-transmitting bearing used with a platform scale. Sunbeam held a patent which specified bearings which were attached to the platform via loose tabs which allowed the bearings to move horizontally. The patent claims required the base of the bearing to be oriented parallel to the platform and remain parallel to the platform at all times. The structure of the accused device was such that the bearings were connection to the platforms using dimples on the lower surface of the platform which the bearings fit into. Sunbeam had criticized prior art which used a similar dimple connection during prosecution beacuse of the potential for unwanted force moments applied by the bearing. The CAFC upheld the District Court's finding of no infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents because bearings which rocked and pivoted, as the accused device did, did not fall within the reach of the patent claims because they did not remain parallel to the platform at all times.

901422128

*Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 264 F.3d 1326 (2001)
Kustom Signals held a patent for a multimode traffic radar system which will show either the fastest speed or the strongest signal. Three of the claims used the word "or" in their wording. Kustom claimed that the "or" was a logical operator meaning one, the other, or both. Applied Concepts had designed a radar system which returned both the fastest speed and the strongest signal. The Court held that the word "or" was to hold its traditional, customary meaning as being exclusive, not inclusive, of the two statements.

901 41 7852

*Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc., 126 F. 3d 1420 (1997)

Sage Products sued Devon Industries for infringement of several patents relating to containers for disposing of hazardous medical waste (needles etc.). Devon counter-sued for infringement of one of its similar patents. The district court held (on summary judgment) that there was no infringement by either party literally or equivalently. The appellate court affirmed.

Devon’s first alleged infringement was of Sage’s container claiming an elongated slot "at the top" of the apparatus for which to deposit waste, and a "barrier over the slot" to prevent contamination. Devon's patent involved a type of elongated slot that was embedded within the container and a hinged element at the opening. The court ruled no literal infringement because the Devon patent did not include the "at the top" and "over" features of the Sage claim. Even though the devices perform the same function the court ruled no equivalent infringement because the hinged element did not "substantially constrict access" to the container, and the slot was not "substantially at the top" of the container. The court was adamant that equivalent function could not negate the “at the top” and “over” limitations of the patent, stating that such power would reduce patent claims to "functional abstracts" devoid of meaningful structure limitations for the public to reference. A second infringement involved in this case resulted in the court ruling that if patent claims specify a function and recite its importance the patentee cannot later accuse an invention devoid of the specified function of infringement.

901419437

*Siemens Medical Solutions USA, INC. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics., F.3d, 2011 WL 651790 (2011)

Siemens developed, manufactured, and sold PET scanners which made use of scintillator crystals consisting of cerium-doped lutetium oxyorthosilicate (LSO). Saint-Gobain manufactures and sells scintillator crystals for use in PET scanners which consisted of cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium orthosilicate (LYSO). This is chemically different from LSO in that some of the lutetium is substituted for by yttrium. In Saint-Gobain's crystals, 10% of the lutetium atoms are substituted for by yttrium atoms (crystals are 10% Y LYSO). In April of 2007, Siemens sued Saint-Gobain for infringement of claims 1 and 2 of Siemens '080 patent for LSO scintillator crystals and photodetectors. Saint-Gobain aregued that its LYSO crystals are not equivalent to those claimed in the '080 patent because their crystals are separately claimed by their '420 patent. A jury trial found Saint-Gobain infringing upon the claims held by Siemens. Saint-Gobains appeals, and claims that the district court erred in jury instructions, claiming that in cases where an alleged equivalent is separately patented, a higher burden of evidence is required. Their reasoning was that the jury's finding of infringement effectively invalidated their '420 patent for LYSO crystals as the ruling of equivalence implied a conclusion of obviousness. The Court of Appeals disagrees, stating that it is well established that separate patentability does not avoid equivalency as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals also disagrees that the jury's finding of infringement invalidates the '420 patent; it only finds the level of LYSO used in practice (10%) is equivalent to Siemen's LSO crystals. Other compositions of LYSO could well be non-equivalent. Using the function-way-result test which asks whether an element of the an accused product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way, the Court of Appeals affirms the juries finding of infringement.

Erich Wolz

*Sunbeam Products Inc. v. Homedics Products Inc. , US Court of Appeals, District Court of Wisconsin (2010)
This case involved a clear example of non-equivalence relating to the doctrine of equivalence. The patent holder Sunbeam Products brought action against competitor Homedics, alleging infringement of its patent for force-transmitting bearings for a platform scale. This case was decided under the district court of Wisconsin. Sunbeam Products had created platform bearings which translated purely horizontally along a platform which transferred all platform loads into purely vertical loads supported by the bearings. A previous patent, ‘326 patent, encompassed bearings which rocked and pivoted. HoMedics's accused scales all include bearings similar to the bearing disclosed in the ′326 patent. Each of the HoMedics bearings is machined with a nose-like protrusion that fits into a corresponding dimple on the underside of the platform. The trial court noted that the accused bearings all rock and pivot within their corresponding dimples in the underside of the platform. Sunbeam did not dispute that the HoMedics bearings rock and pivot in that manner. Sunbeam's argument was that in addition to rocking and pivoting, the HoMedics bearings were capable of some horizontal movement and therefore infringe the ′420 patent.
In light of its claim construction and the undisputed evidence regarding the operation of the bearings in the accused HoMedics products, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. The court determined that no reasonable juror could find that bearings that rock and pivot remain parallel to the underside of the platform; accordingly, it held that the pivoting bearings in all of the accused products do not literally infringe the ′420 patent.

The most important distinction that was made in this case was the following statement. “The doctrine of equivalents is not a license to rewrite the claims to encompass what a patentee believes to be an equivalent structure. That is especially true in a case such as this one, where the accused product is not later-developed technology that is insubstantially different from the claimed invention, but instead embodies disavowed prior art. Thus, the district court correctly held that the accused bearings do not infringe the ′420 patent under the doctrine of equivalents.”

Christine Roetzel - 901425022

*Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U.S. 717 F.2d 1351

NASA and Department of Defense, were trying to build a satellite that would orbit the earth. However, they were unable to do so they had problems with the attitude control. Williams, a man who was working for Hughes Co. was able to figure out the problem. He was able to have lab model on 4/2/60 and it was called "dynamic wheel." Williams presented it to NASA and then Hughes Co and NASA entered an agreement to build the satellite. Williams filed for a patent on 4/18/60 and that became known as "Williams patent."
However, the govt started to build these spacecrafts that used the same systems from the satellite and did not give compensation to Williams. It went to court and the govt said that Williams patent was invalid because it infringed McLean's telescope. Williams rewrote his claims and stated “McLean's infrared telescope does not indicate the instantaneous spin angle position of his body with reference to a fixed external coordinate system, and it does not indicate the orientation of the axis with reference to a fixed external coordinate system." The court found Williams patent valid.
Then, the court looked at the spacecraft and compared it to Williams satellite. They found the following similarites: "(1) each is spin-stabilized; (2) each contains a jet on the periphery, connected by a valve to a tank containing fluid for expulsion substantially parallel to the spin axis; (3) each employs sun sensors to sense ISA position; (4) each requires knowledge of orientation relative to a fixed external coordinate system; (5) each contains radio equipment for communicating with the ground; (6) each transmits spin rate and sun angle information to a ground crew; and (7) in each, jet firing is synchronized with ISA position to effect controlled precession and thus to achieve a desired orientation."
Needless to say the court ruled that govt infringed Williams patent.

901439143

* Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc. 126 F.3d. 1420 (1997)

In this case, Sage Products sued Devon Industries for infringement of two of its patents and Devon countersued Sage for infringement of one of its own patents, all of which relate to the disposal of medical waste products such as needles. In trial and on appeal, the courts held that there was no literal infringement nor infringement by the doctrine of equivalents by any party. Sage claimed that Devon's '251 for a "tortuous path" disposal container infringed on both its '728 patent for a sharps disposal container and its '849 patent for the removal and storage of syringe needles. Devon claimed that Sage's '728 patent infringed on its '592 patent for a disposal container.
** The '728 patent consists of an opening with a curved arc extending above it and another below it (inside the container) with a rotatable L-shaped flap such that waste can be deposited without exposing it again.
** The '849 patent covers a container with notches for removing needles and a "moveable closure" that allows the container to be closed and reopened as needed.
** The '251 patent covers a disposal container with a slotted opening at the top and 2 overlapping but displaced obstructions within the container to prevent accessing material that has been disposed of. It also has a closure that permanently locks once closed.
** The 592 patent covers a container that has a slotted opening and another "baffle" within the container that has another slotted opening horizontally displaced from the first
The courts held that the '251 patent did not infringe on the '728 patent because the patent explicitly described a precise configuration of an opening at the "top of the container" with one obstruction "over said slot" and another below, and that '251 configuration was different. They also held that the '251 patent did not infringe on the '849 patent because there was an important difference between permanent closure and closure that can be reopened. Finally, the '728 patent did not infringe on the '592 patents for similar reasons as the first: the configurations were very different. The '592 patent emphasized a horizontal displacement, which was not part of the '728 patent. The courts held that the use of precise language in patents limited the claims and because disposal containers were reasonably simple and straightforward, different configurations could not be equated.

Julia Potter (jpotter2)

* Kudlacek v. DBC, Inc. 115 F. Supp. 2d 996 (2000)

Owner of Patent No. 5,611,325 for an archery bow stabilizer, Donald Kudlacek, brought an infringement suit against competitor DBC, Inc. DBC counterclaimed, stating that its patent for a peep sight targeting system was being infringed. The claim in question was a "threading" limitation on the stabilizer describing how it is adjusted and secured. The District Court decided that neither Kudlacek's stabilizer nor DBC's peep sight target system were infringed. This was because the accused device, the "Super Stix," was found to not be equivalent to the patented device because it did not infringe all the elements of claim 1. Though the accused device performs, basically, the same function, it does so in a substantially different way; therefore the Doctrine of Equivalents does not apply. Note that the invalidity issue was not settled by finding that the patent was not infringed.

901437068

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)

Adkins v. Lear discussed the assembly and sale of a certain type of gyroscope. The gyroscope design had originally been borrowed by Lear, from Adkins under the terms that Lear would pay a small percentage of their profits to Adkins since Lear was not the original inventor of the gyroscope mechanical design. Conflicts arose when Lear refused to pay Adkins under the claim that their new gyroscope was a unique design that differed from the original design contracted from Adkins. The judges determined that since the new design was similar to the original in all the necessary inner working components and only differed in the external aesthetic features, the new design infringed on the old since it did not provide any new or useful feature. Based on this judgment Lear was required to pay Adkins for any sales of the new gyroscope.

901438174

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)

I hate to be repetitive, but I read the same case. I will reiterate, it is a case about a dispute over profit sharing. Adkins invented the gyroscope and required Lear to share profits if he used the design. The dispute arose when Lear made an improvement upon the designed and refused to pay profits on this "new and improved" design. This design was really just the innards reworked into a new shape without altering the size or scale. This was ruled to be equivalent to the original design, reinforcing the underlying ideas of the doctrine of equivalents.

cmadiga1

Lemelson v. Mattel (1992), (968 F.2d 1202)

Lemelson sued Mattel, saying that their hotwheels toys infringed on his patent for a flexible track for toy cars. In the original case, Hotwheels was ruled to have infringed on Lemelson's patent. The history of the patents in the toy race car tracks was important in this case. Before Lemelson received his patent, Giardiol had a patent for a flexible car track with an internal support. Mattel's track was very similar in all aspects of the Giardiol patent, but did not have an internal frame. Lemelson's patent was originally denied as being completely anticipated by Giardiol. However by adding claims to the vertical supports which define the track and keep the car on the track Lemelson was able to distinguish his product and obtain a patent. Therefore, these were ruled as the defining characteristics of Lemelson's patent. In the original case, the jury found that Hotwheels product did not contain these characteristics. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the previous ruling saying that the jury had made a logical error.

Andy Stulc

Doctrine of Equivalents Case List

2011-04-04T13:30:45Z

Kriester:

Add your case to the list with a one-paragraph (approximately 250 words) summary of the facts at issues, i.e., "an umbrella is or is not equivalent to a parasol because..."

Please put the cases in chronological order. If two are from the same year, then put them in alphabetical order. Also put your name, your login name or NDID number with your case. Use the following for a template.

* Goodwine v. Batill, 123 US 4567 (1066)
This case concerned a patent for an iPad and the patentee sued the maker of an iPod for infringement. The important part of the claim was "a device for playing music and other media comprising a touch screen..." The court held that iPod infringed the iPad patent because the ... was equivalent to the ... because ...

Patrick Lane (901431645)
* Union Paper-Bag Machine Company v. Murphy (1877)
In this case, the patents in question were machines used to make paper bags. The machines are loaded with large rolls of paper and then stamp out the bag pattern, or "blanks," which are then folded and pasted to make a paper bag. Union Paper was granted a patent in 1859 for this type of machine which used a long, straight knife which would move up and down to punch the pattern out of the paper. In 1874, Murphy was granted a patent for a similar device that used a serrated knife which cut the paper from below as the rolls moved over it. Union is suing Murphy for infringement, claiming the devices which cut the paper in each machine are substantially equivalent, and therefore are under protection by Union's 1859 patent. Murphy argued that the serrated knife is an improvement over the straight knife, and that the method of cutting was different enough to constitute patent protection. However, the expert witness explained that the paper is essentially being cut in the same way in each device: a fast moving, sharp edge is slicing through the paper. Even though one knife was serrated, the cutting occurs in the same mechanical fashion, and therefore is equivalent. The court found in favor of Union, stating that the two methods of cutting the blanks were substantially equal because they performed the same function in the same way.
* I had also read this case. The above is a good summary, though perhaps also worth noting is the fact that the court made specific mention of the fact that changing the name of the invention had no bearing on its nonequivalence (though this seems pretty obvious). - Kurt Riester

hwong1
* Absolute Software Inc. v. Stealth Signal Inc.
The patents in question deal with security apparatus’ that are used to retrieve lost or stolen electronic devices. Absolute accused Stealth of infringing on their patent, and in effect Stealth filed a counterclaim stating that Absolute infringed on another prior art. Both companies filed for summary judgment stating that neither infringed on any patent. The doctrine of equivalence was used to determine if either company infringed on other patents. Absolute proves that It does not infringe on the prior art because the transmission message to the central site is not done at a semi-random rate. Absolute did not literally infringe, but the doctrine of equivalence was needed to verify. The courts found that since Absolute’s product makes the call to the central site every 24.5 hours, it is not ‘random’ by any means but rather ‘uniformly randomly distributed’. Thus, Absolute does not infringe on its prior art. Stealth was analyzed on in infringing on Absolute by the use of an XTool agent. Doctrine of Equivalence is again applied, finding that Stealth’s invention differed in providing a step at the end of the communication that Absolute does not have. Absolute has written in their claims on their Xtool agent “without signaling the visual or audible user interface.” Therefore, when Stealth created an audible user interface, it made its invention nonequivalent to Absolutes. Thus, Stealth is found to be non-infringing with their patent.

Bill Goodwine

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)
This case was discussed in class and presented by another student, but I read it as well. This case concerned a patent for a gyroscope owned by Adkins, the inventor of an improved gyroscope, and Lear, the company that sells gyroscopes. Lear and Adkins had a written agreement that allowed Lear to sell Adkin’s patented invention, where Adkins received a small percentage of the net sales price as royalties. In 1957, Lear refused to pay royalties to Adkins with the claim that they were selling gyroscopes that differed from Adkin’s invention. However, the “new” gyroscopes differed only in “size, form, and shape,” but “contain[ed] the same elements.” The essential elements were the same between Adkin’s patent and Lear’s other steel gyroscopes, but the scale and exact assembly was different. Since those did not constitute a substantial difference, the jury of the Supreme Court of California held Adkins in favor and required Lear to pay royalties to Adkins for the sales price of the other gyroscopes sold. This case is an example of clear infringement.

901431048

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968)(67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)
I am the other student^^^(see case above). Other items of note in the case, aside from the summary above, include that the court ruled that infringing the doctrine of equivalence is a matter of fact and that the jury should be the one to establish it. This brings up an interesting qualification, as it seems almost every other case considered with respect to the doctrine of equivalence was decided by judges, not juries.

Brobins

*AMEC Liquidating Trust v. IVAC Corporation, 885 F.2d 1574 (1989)

AMEC had a patent for a thermometer with a plastic cover held on by a hooking type mechanism. IVAC created a thermometer with a cover held on by a ring that created a friction lock. The CAFC held the IVAC invention was non-infringing on the AMEC patent because under the doctrine of equivalents, it did not perform the same function in the same way. The AMEC thermometer cover used an inscription fit, which created deep scratches in the cover. The IVAC thermometer used a friction fit, which only created superficial scratches in the cover. The CAFC found that the superficial scratches did not constitute an inscription fit. Also, the CAFC decided that AMEC did not present any evidence proving that the ring in the IVAC patent was equivalent to the “hook” in the AMEC patent. Because of this, the patent was non-infringing under the doctrine of equivalents.

901444263

*Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574 (1989)

The inventor, Turner, invented a thermometer probe cover that stays on (this was owned by AMEC). It kept the cover on via a sharp metal hook to tear into the cover’s plastic. IVAC developed a thermometer that served a similar purpose of keeping the probe cover on, except that it did so with a ring on the probe (to hold the cover via friction). IVAC intentionally left the probe free of any sharp edge to ease the removal of the probe cover when needed. District Court of Southern California ruled in summary judgment that IVAC’s thermometer probe covers do not infringe AMEC’s. On appeal from AMEC, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. A ring that does not tear the plastic cover is not equivalent to the hook that does. [http://campus.westlaw.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/result/default.wl?mt=CampusLaw&db=ALLCASES&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT4121840350313&origin=Search&sp=003654480-2000&method=TNC&cfid=1&rp=%2fwelcome%2fCampusLaw%2fdefault.wl&eq=welcome%2fCampusLaw&rltdb=CLID_DB1095239350313&srch=TRUE&query=TI(JOHNSTON+%26+IVAC)&vr=2.0&fmqv=s&action=Search&fn=_top&service=Search&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.01]

901471466

*Unitronics Ltd. v. Gharb, 318 Fed.Appx. 902 C.A.Fed. (Dist.Col.) (1989)

This case involved a patent for programmable logic controllers with Global System for Mobile communications. The main issue was infringement based on the capabilities of the programmable logic controllers (PLCs). The court held that alleged infringers PLCs did not contain a “digital recording device having at least one emergency message” or an equivalent. The alleged infringers PLCs also did not have the “data set for transmission to the mobile telephone including alarm information.” The court also ruled that they did not have anything equivalent to either of these claims. Based on the ruling in Warner-Jenkinson the device is not infringing unless it “contains each limitation of the claim, either literally or by an equivalent.” The alleged infringing PLCs did not have a similarity to all of the limitations to the claim and were thus allowed to continue selling their device. [[http://campus.westlaw.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/result/default.wl?mt=CampusLaw&db=ALLFEDS%2cALLSTATES%2cSCT&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT3654057332134&origin=Search&sp=003654480-2000&method=WIN&cfid=1&rp=%2fWelcome%2fCampusLaw%2fdefault.wl&eq=Welcome%2fCampusLaw&rltdb=CLID_DB3890056332134&srch=TRUE&query=unitronics+gharb&vr=2.0&fmqv=s&action=Search&fn=_top&service=Search&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.01]]

901479977

*Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates (1990)

Wilson is suing DGA/Dunlop for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of its patented design for a golf ball. Wilson's patent is for a golf ball modeled as an icosahedron with dimples placed in such a way as to have 6 "great circles" of symmetry instead of the typical 1. The patent specifies where dimples should be placed on the ball and requires that no dimples be placed on the great circles. The accused DGA balls use the same "great circles" design, but with dimples placed on the great circles. DGA's defense is that there is "no principled difference" between its design and a design of the prior art (prior to Wilson's patent). Therefore, allowing Wilson to utilize the doctrine of equivalents would extend protection of claims already in the prior art to Wilson's patent. The CAFC decided that Wilson can only utilize the doctrine of equivalents if it can make a hypothetical claim that literally covers Dunlop's design (in this case, claim a ball with dimples placed on the great circles) and is also nonobvious considering the prior art. Wilson is unable to make such a nonobvious hypothetical claim and therefore no infringement was found.

901338276

* Lemelson v. General Mills, Inc., 968 F.2d 1202 (1992)

Lemelson sued Mattel, alleging that Mattel's "Hot Wheels" toy car track infringed on his patented toy track. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found in favor of the plaintiff. Mattel appealed to the CAFC. The Court held that the "Hot Wheels" track did not contain all the limitations of the patent; it was equivalent to the prior art. That is, Lemelson's patent could not be both valid in light of the prior art and infringed upon by Mattel. Furthermore, upon his first application, claim 3 of Lemelson's patent had five clauses. The PTO examiner found the patent to be indistinguishable from the prior art. Lemelson added clauses [f] and [g] and received a patent. The important parts of the claim were, "[f] said guide means include a pair of spaced apart runner portions for defining the pathway of a vehicle moving over said track, [g] said spaced apart runner portions include upwardly extending rails for guiding the wheels of a vehicle." The Court held that "Hot wheels" did not contain any elements equivalent to the clauses [f] and [g]. The Court also noted that the public is entitled to the PTO record to determine the scope and meaning of claims.

901330223

*Valmont Industries Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Company Inc., 983 F.2d 1039 (1993)

901316153

This case concerns an adaption for center-pivot (i.e. rotating) irrigation systems. The adaption (an apparatus that attaches to the main frame of the sprinkler) allows the corners of a field, normally missed by the standard rotating irrigation system, to be watered. The infringement issue relates to the means by which the position of the sprinkler is detected, relative to the field. The patent uses a method of pivot angle encoders, while the "infringing" patent uses buried electromagnetic cables to guide the sprinkler around the field.

The CAFC ruled that the second device was not infringing, reversing the decision of the district court. The district court argued that the means of controlling the system were equivalent. The CAFC's argument was that while the two irrigation systems performed substantially the same overall function to obtain substantially the same overall result as the claimed invention, the way those results were achieved was substantially different. "Comparison of these two control means compels the conclusion that the claimed control means and Reinke's control means are not structurally equivalent.[...][E]ven though both the control means in the specification and the control means on Reinke's device use electric signals, the structures generating those signals are strikingly different."

Because the doctrine of equivalence requires that the two devices perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same results, the two control systems were not equivalent under the doctrine of equivalence because they did not meet the "way" requirement of the doctrine of equivalence.

*William Bradshaw and Robert Shepherd v. Igloo Products Corp. 1997 WL 543109 (US District Court, N.D.Ill.)

William Bradshaw sued Igloo Products for infringement of a wheeled cooler. Bradshaw’s patent was for a cooler with a pulling handle and two lifting handles, one of which was connected on the same axle as the pulling handle. The Igloo products in question were the Rolling Kool Locker which had a rotatable lifting hand that can also be used to pull the cooler and the Cool Roller which had separate lifting and pulling handles coupled to separate axles. The court decided that the prior art for the Cool Roller was a different patent, the Mason patent. This patent was for a wheeled cooler with separate lifting and pulling handles. The Mason patent was granted before Bradshaw’s patent. The court ruled that the Cool Roller fell under the Mason patent. Therefore, if Bradshaw’s patent were to be expanded to include the Cool Roller’s handles, it would be an invalid patent as a result of the prior art, the Mason patent. This leads to a method of deciding infringement. If the product in question mimics prior art, then it cannot infringe the patent otherwise that patent would be invalid. In deciding infringement for the Rolling Kool Locker, the court decided that it was up to a jury to decide whether the Kool Lockers handles were equivalent to Bradshaw’s patent, since there was no other glaring evidence.

Eric Paul

* Dr. Raymond G. Tronzo v. Biomet Inc. 1998 156 F.3d 1154 (United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit)
In this case Biomet was accused of infringement of an artificial hip prosthesis patented by Dr. Tronzo (patent 4,743,262). The alleged infringement revolved around the shape of the artificial hip socket and the hinge that was inserted into the socket. Patent ‘262 claimed a “generally conical” shape of the hip socket. Biomet’s design contained a strictly hemispherical shape. The court heard evidence in which it was claimed that even though the shapes would have at first glance performed in the same manner, the forces generated on the surface of each implant would be different depending on the shape. Additionally, after hearing expert testimony that suggested any shape would have been equivalent to the conical limitations of the patent claims, the court said that such a ruling would have been impermissible under the all-elements rule of Warner Jenkinson because it would write the “generally conical” shape limitation out of the claims. Therefore, the court held that the accused design did not infringe upon the patent claims under the doctrine of equivalence.

Peter Mitros (901461727)

*Hale Propeller, L.L.C. v Ryan Marine Products Pty., LTD., et al, 151 F. Supp .2d 183 (2001) Connecticut District Court
Ryan owned patent 4411073, issued on 25 October 1983, which concerned devices to measure the pitch of propeller blades. Ryan originally filed the claim on 13 July 1981 it was rejected and then ammended on 4 October 1982. Hale's device called the "Hale Propeller MRI" was developed in 1997. In question are claims 1(b),(c),(f), and 6. A third party, Michigan Wheel Corporation, a distributor of Hale's invention filed for patent invalidity. The important differences between Hale's and Ryan's device are that Hale's does not use gears or worm-drives to rotate the blade and the device does not give direct readouts of the measurements using electric circuits. The issue with claim 1(b) was if a roller was a necessary part of the structure because it prevents skipping of the probe making the measurements more accurate. The court used means-plus-function to rule that the roller was important and Hale did not infringe. The issue with claim 1(c) deals with whether a worm or gear drive is necessary to rotate the blade. Ryan's patent discloses a hand-cranked device, like Hales, but includes a worm-drive. Part of Ryan's ammendment to his claim was to include worm gear to the hand-cranking device and therefore the court used prosecution history estoppel to make their decision because Ryan forfeited that claim (hand-cranked device without worm-drive) in order to get the patent and therefore cannot use doctrine of equivalents to get the claim back. The issue of claim 1(f) was whether the computer in the claim was a special computer needed for the readouts. The court ruled that the claim was not that narrow, but then the court ruled that claim 6 dealt with a computer that receives measurement data from the optical encoder and therefore Hale did not infringe. The patent was also ruled valid using the roller and worm drive to prove that it was non-obvious §103, definitively disclosed §112, and not anticipated by prior art §102(b).

Gillian Allsup

901281608

*Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. Nos. 2010-1145, 2010-117. (2001) United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

This case began as an infringement lawsuit by Siemens Medical Solutions USA, inc. against Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics, Inc. for the alleged infringement of a patent held by Siemens for a scintillator, a part of an x-ray machine that detects radiation. Saint-Gobain owned a patent for a similar device and the circuit court found that this patent infringed on the patent held by Siemens, which was filed earlier. Though the doctrine of equivalents was used to rule infringement, Saint-Gobain was found to have accidentally, rather than willfully infringed and Siemens was awarded 52.3 million dollars.

Siemens filed for patent number 4,958,080 on August 4, 1989. This patent was for a scintillator containing cerium-doped- lutetium oxyorthosilicate. This is a component of a radiation detector that absorbs gamma-ray photons from an x-ray machine and converts them to visible light so the results can be interpreted. Saint-Gobain also produces scintillators, filing patent number 6,6424,420 in 2000 for a cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium orthosilicate. The chemical composition differs from that of the Siemens' patent as %10 of the lutetium is substituted for yttrium. These scintillators were sold by Saint-Gobain to Philips Medical Systems, a competitor of Siemens. The circuit court found that the composition of Saint-Gobain's scintillator preformed largely the same function in the same manner as Siemens' patent, and therefore was infringement under the doctrine of equivalence.

Saint-Gobain filed a motion for a new trail, on the basis that the jury was not told that infringement by the doctrine of equivalence must be proved by clear evidence and argued that damages should be remitted. The Federal Appeals Court did not grant Saint-Gobain a new trial, but did reduces the damages to 44 million.

*Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283 C.A.Fed. (Mich.), 2010
Adams Respiratory Therapeutics patented an extended release formulation of expectorant. The patent was for Mucinex and was new in that it allowed the expectorant (an aspect to medicine which promotes the discharge of phlegm or other fluid from the respiratory tract). Adams brought suit, alleging that generic manufacturer's (Perrigo's) proposed production and marketing of generic version of the product would infringe its patent. The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Gordon J. Quist, J., 2010 WL 565195, granted defendant summary judgment of non-infringement. Plaintiff appealed. Within the patent Adams specified an amount of expectorant in the drug using the words "at least." The court found that "at least" did not prevent the use of the doctrine of equivalents and that the doctrine may apply to patents with specific number ranges. Adams patent stated that it would have at least 3500 hr*ng/mL, while Perrigo was using 3494.38 hr*ng/mL (only a 0.189% difference). Adams argued that this number was not substantially different and thus should represent infringement. Perrigo argued that because the claim does not use words of approximation, Adams cannot expand this element to ensnare Perrigo's product. The court found that the fact that the claim does not contain words of approximation does not affect the analysis-“terms like ‘approximately’ serve only to expand the scope of literal infringement, not to enable application of the doctrine of equivalents.” The proper inquiry is whether the accused value is insubstantially different from the claimed value. Because the court found that there was not a substantial difference between the numbers the doctrine of equivalents applied, the order of the district court was vacated and the case was remanded.

Snooki

*Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Homedics, Inc., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 5230892 (2010)

This case involved a patent for a force-transmitting bearing used with a platform scale. Sunbeam held a patent which specified bearings which were attached to the platform via loose tabs which allowed the bearings to move horizontally. The patent claims required the base of the bearing to be oriented parallel to the platform and remain parallel to the platform at all times. The structure of the accused device was such that the bearings were connection to the platforms using dimples on the lower surface of the platform which the bearings fit into. Sunbeam had criticized prior art which used a similar dimple connection during prosecution beacuse of the potential for unwanted force moments applied by the bearing. The CAFC upheld the District Court's finding of no infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents because bearings which rocked and pivoted, as the accused device did, did not fall within the reach of the patent claims because they did not remain parallel to the platform at all times.

901422128

*Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 264 F.3d 1326 (2001)
Kustom Signals held a patent for a multimode traffic radar system which will show either the fastest speed or the strongest signal. Three of the claims used the word "or" in their wording. Kustom claimed that the "or" was a logical operator meaning one, the other, or both. Applied Concepts had designed a radar system which returned both the fastest speed and the strongest signal. The Court held that the word "or" was to hold its traditional, customary meaning as being exclusive, not inclusive, of the two statements.

901 41 7852

*Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc., 126 F. 3d 1420 (1997)

Sage Products sued Devon Industries for infringement of several patents relating to containers for disposing of hazardous medical waste (needles etc.). Devon counter-sued for infringement of one of its similar patents. The district court held (on summary judgment) that there was no infringement by either party literally or equivalently. The appellate court affirmed.

Devon’s first alleged infringement was of Sage’s container claiming an elongated slot "at the top" of the apparatus for which to deposit waste, and a "barrier over the slot" to prevent contamination. Devon's patent involved a type of elongated slot that was embedded within the container and a hinged element at the opening. The court ruled no literal infringement because the Devon patent did not include the "at the top" and "over" features of the Sage claim. Even though the devices perform the same function the court ruled no equivalent infringement because the hinged element did not "substantially constrict access" to the container, and the slot was not "substantially at the top" of the container. The court was adamant that equivalent function could not negate the “at the top” and “over” limitations of the patent, stating that such power would reduce patent claims to "functional abstracts" devoid of meaningful structure limitations for the public to reference. A second infringement involved in this case resulted in the court ruling that if patent claims specify a function and recite its importance the patentee cannot later accuse an invention devoid of the specified function of infringement.

901419437

*Siemens Medical Solutions USA, INC. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics., F.3d, 2011 WL 651790 (2011)

Siemens developed, manufactured, and sold PET scanners which made use of scintillator crystals consisting of cerium-doped lutetium oxyorthosilicate (LSO). Saint-Gobain manufactures and sells scintillator crystals for use in PET scanners which consisted of cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium orthosilicate (LYSO). This is chemically different from LSO in that some of the lutetium is substituted for by yttrium. In Saint-Gobain's crystals, 10% of the lutetium atoms are substituted for by yttrium atoms (crystals are 10% Y LYSO). In April of 2007, Siemens sued Saint-Gobain for infringement of claims 1 and 2 of Siemens '080 patent for LSO scintillator crystals and photodetectors. Saint-Gobain aregued that its LYSO crystals are not equivalent to those claimed in the '080 patent because their crystals are separately claimed by their '420 patent. A jury trial found Saint-Gobain infringing upon the claims held by Siemens. Saint-Gobains appeals, and claims that the district court erred in jury instructions, claiming that in cases where an alleged equivalent is separately patented, a higher burden of evidence is required. Their reasoning was that the jury's finding of infringement effectively invalidated their '420 patent for LYSO crystals as the ruling of equivalence implied a conclusion of obviousness. The Court of Appeals disagrees, stating that it is well established that separate patentability does not avoid equivalency as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals also disagrees that the jury's finding of infringement invalidates the '420 patent; it only finds the level of LYSO used in practice (10%) is equivalent to Siemen's LSO crystals. Other compositions of LYSO could well be non-equivalent. Using the function-way-result test which asks whether an element of the an accused product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way, the Court of Appeals affirms the juries finding of infringement.

Erich Wolz

*Sunbeam Products Inc. v. Homedics Products Inc. , US Court of Appeals, District Court of Wisconsin (2010)
This case involved a clear example of non-equivalence relating to the doctrine of equivalence. The patent holder Sunbeam Products brought action against competitor Homedics, alleging infringement of its patent for force-transmitting bearings for a platform scale. This case was decided under the district court of Wisconsin. Sunbeam Products had created platform bearings which translated purely horizontally along a platform which transferred all platform loads into purely vertical loads supported by the bearings. A previous patent, ‘326 patent, encompassed bearings which rocked and pivoted. HoMedics's accused scales all include bearings similar to the bearing disclosed in the ′326 patent. Each of the HoMedics bearings is machined with a nose-like protrusion that fits into a corresponding dimple on the underside of the platform. The trial court noted that the accused bearings all rock and pivot within their corresponding dimples in the underside of the platform. Sunbeam did not dispute that the HoMedics bearings rock and pivot in that manner. Sunbeam's argument was that in addition to rocking and pivoting, the HoMedics bearings were capable of some horizontal movement and therefore infringe the ′420 patent.
In light of its claim construction and the undisputed evidence regarding the operation of the bearings in the accused HoMedics products, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. The court determined that no reasonable juror could find that bearings that rock and pivot remain parallel to the underside of the platform; accordingly, it held that the pivoting bearings in all of the accused products do not literally infringe the ′420 patent.

The most important distinction that was made in this case was the following statement. “The doctrine of equivalents is not a license to rewrite the claims to encompass what a patentee believes to be an equivalent structure. That is especially true in a case such as this one, where the accused product is not later-developed technology that is insubstantially different from the claimed invention, but instead embodies disavowed prior art. Thus, the district court correctly held that the accused bearings do not infringe the ′420 patent under the doctrine of equivalents.”

Christine Roetzel - 901425022

*Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U.S. 717 F.2d 1351

NASA and Department of Defense, were trying to build a satellite that would orbit the earth. However, they were unable to do so they had problems with the attitude control. Williams, a man who was working for Hughes Co. was able to figure out the problem. He was able to have lab model on 4/2/60 and it was called "dynamic wheel." Williams presented it to NASA and then Hughes Co and NASA entered an agreement to build the satellite. Williams filed for a patent on 4/18/60 and that became known as "Williams patent."
However, the govt started to build these spacecrafts that used the same systems from the satellite and did not give compensation to Williams. It went to court and the govt said that Williams patent was invalid because it infringed McLean's telescope. Williams rewrote his claims and stated “McLean's infrared telescope does not indicate the instantaneous spin angle position of his body with reference to a fixed external coordinate system, and it does not indicate the orientation of the axis with reference to a fixed external coordinate system." The court found Williams patent valid.
Then, the court looked at the spacecraft and compared it to Williams satellite. They found the following similarites: "(1) each is spin-stabilized; (2) each contains a jet on the periphery, connected by a valve to a tank containing fluid for expulsion substantially parallel to the spin axis; (3) each employs sun sensors to sense ISA position; (4) each requires knowledge of orientation relative to a fixed external coordinate system; (5) each contains radio equipment for communicating with the ground; (6) each transmits spin rate and sun angle information to a ground crew; and (7) in each, jet firing is synchronized with ISA position to effect controlled precession and thus to achieve a desired orientation."
Needless to say the court ruled that govt infringed Williams patent.

901439143

* Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc. 126 F.3d. 1420 (1997)

In this case, Sage Products sued Devon Industries for infringement of two of its patents and Devon countersued Sage for infringement of one of its own patents, all of which relate to the disposal of medical waste products such as needles. In trial and on appeal, the courts held that there was no literal infringement nor infringement by the doctrine of equivalents by any party. Sage claimed that Devon's '251 for a "tortuous path" disposal container infringed on both its '728 patent for a sharps disposal container and its '849 patent for the removal and storage of syringe needles. Devon claimed that Sage's '728 patent infringed on its '592 patent for a disposal container.
** The '728 patent consists of an opening with a curved arc extending above it and another below it (inside the container) with a rotatable L-shaped flap such that waste can be deposited without exposing it again.
** The '849 patent covers a container with notches for removing needles and a "moveable closure" that allows the container to be closed and reopened as needed.
** The '251 patent covers a disposal container with a slotted opening at the top and 2 overlapping but displaced obstructions within the container to prevent accessing material that has been disposed of. It also has a closure that permanently locks once closed.
** The 592 patent covers a container that has a slotted opening and another "baffle" within the container that has another slotted opening horizontally displaced from the first
The courts held that the '251 patent did not infringe on the '728 patent because the patent explicitly described a precise configuration of an opening at the "top of the container" with one obstruction "over said slot" and another below, and that '251 configuration was different. They also held that the '251 patent did not infringe on the '849 patent because there was an important difference between permanent closure and closure that can be reopened. Finally, the '728 patent did not infringe on the '592 patents for similar reasons as the first: the configurations were very different. The '592 patent emphasized a horizontal displacement, which was not part of the '728 patent. The courts held that the use of precise language in patents limited the claims and because disposal containers were reasonably simple and straightforward, different configurations could not be equated.

Julia Potter (jpotter2)

* Kudlacek v. DBC, Inc. 115 F. Supp. 2d 996 (2000)

Owner of Patent No. 5,611,325 for an archery bow stabilizer, Donald Kudlacek, brought an infringement suit against competitor DBC, Inc. DBC counterclaimed, stating that its patent for a peep sight targeting system was being infringed. The claim in question was a "threading" limitation on the stabilizer describing how it is adjusted and secured. The District Court decided that neither Kudlacek's stabilizer nor DBC's peep sight target system were infringed. This was because the accused device, the "Super Stix," was found to not be equivalent to the patented device because it did not infringe all the elements of claim 1. Though the accused device performs, basically, the same function, it does so in a substantially different way; therefore the Doctrine of Equivalents does not apply. Note that the invalidity issue was not settled by finding that the patent was not infringed.

901437068

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)

Adkins v. Lear discussed the assembly and sale of a certain type of gyroscope. The gyroscope design had originally been borrowed by Lear, from Adkins under the terms that Lear would pay a small percentage of their profits to Adkins since Lear was not the original inventor of the gyroscope mechanical design. Conflicts arose when Lear refused to pay Adkins under the claim that their new gyroscope was a unique design that differed from the original design contracted from Adkins. The judges determined that since the new design was similar to the original in all the necessary inner working components and only differed in the external aesthetic features, the new design infringed on the old since it did not provide any new or useful feature. Based on this judgment Lear was required to pay Adkins for any sales of the new gyroscope.

901438174

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)

I hate to be repetitive, but I read the same case. I will reiterate, it is a case about a dispute over profit sharing. Adkins invented the gyroscope and required Lear to share profits if he used the design. The dispute arose when Lear made an improvement upon the designed and refused to pay profits on this "new and improved" design. This design was really just the innards reworked into a new shape without altering the size or scale. This was ruled to be equivalent to the original design, reinforcing the underlying ideas of the doctrine of equivalents.

cmadiga1

Lemelson v. Mattel (1992), (968 F.2d 1202)

Lemelson sued Mattel, saying that their hotwheels toys infringed on his patent for a flexible track for toy cars. In the original case, Hotwheels was ruled to have infringed on Lemelson's patent. The history of the patents in the toy race car tracks was important in this case. Before Lemelson received his patent, Giardiol had a patent for a flexible car track with an internal support. Mattel's track was very similar in all aspects of the Giardiol patent, but did not have an internal frame. Lemelson's patent was originally denied as being completely anticipated by Giardiol. However by adding claims to the vertical supports which define the track and keep the car on the track Lemelson was able to distinguish his product and obtain a patent. Therefore, these were ruled as the defining characteristics of Lemelson's patent. In the original case, the jury found that Hotwheels product did not contain these characteristics. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the previous ruling saying that the jury had made a logical error.

Andy Stulc

Doctrine of Equivalents Case List

2011-04-04T13:30:04Z

Kriester:

Add your case to the list with a one-paragraph (approximately 250 words) summary of the facts at issues, i.e., "an umbrella is or is not equivalent to a parasol because..."

Please put the cases in chronological order. If two are from the same year, then put them in alphabetical order. Also put your name, your login name or NDID number with your case. Use the following for a template.

* Goodwine v. Batill, 123 US 4567 (1066)
This case concerned a patent for an iPad and the patentee sued the maker of an iPod for infringement. The important part of the claim was "a device for playing music and other media comprising a touch screen..." The court held that iPod infringed the iPad patent because the ... was equivalent to the ... because ...

Patrick Lane (901431645)
* Union Paper-Bag Machine Company v. Murphy (1877)
In this case, the patents in question were machines used to make paper bags. The machines are loaded with large rolls of paper and then stamp out the bag pattern, or "blanks," which are then folded and pasted to make a paper bag. Union Paper was granted a patent in 1859 for this type of machine which used a long, straight knife which would move up and down to punch the pattern out of the paper. In 1874, Murphy was granted a patent for a similar device that used a serrated knife which cut the paper from below as the rolls moved over it. Union is suing Murphy for infringement, claiming the devices which cut the paper in each machine are substantially equivalent, and therefore are under protection by Union's 1859 patent. Murphy argued that the serrated knife is an improvement over the straight knife, and that the method of cutting was different enough to constitute patent protection. However, the expert witness explained that the paper is essentially being cut in the same way in each device: a fast moving, sharp edge is slicing through the paper. Even though one knife was serrated, the cutting occurs in the same mechanical fashion, and therefore is equivalent. The court found in favor of Union, stating that the two methods of cutting the blanks were substantially equal because they performed the same function in the same way.
* I had also read this case. The above is a good summary, though perhaps also worth noting is the fact that the court made specific mention to the fact that changing the name of the invention had no bearing on its nonequivalence (though this seems pretty obvious). - Kurt Riester

hwong1
* Absolute Software Inc. v. Stealth Signal Inc.
The patents in question deal with security apparatus’ that are used to retrieve lost or stolen electronic devices. Absolute accused Stealth of infringing on their patent, and in effect Stealth filed a counterclaim stating that Absolute infringed on another prior art. Both companies filed for summary judgment stating that neither infringed on any patent. The doctrine of equivalence was used to determine if either company infringed on other patents. Absolute proves that It does not infringe on the prior art because the transmission message to the central site is not done at a semi-random rate. Absolute did not literally infringe, but the doctrine of equivalence was needed to verify. The courts found that since Absolute’s product makes the call to the central site every 24.5 hours, it is not ‘random’ by any means but rather ‘uniformly randomly distributed’. Thus, Absolute does not infringe on its prior art. Stealth was analyzed on in infringing on Absolute by the use of an XTool agent. Doctrine of Equivalence is again applied, finding that Stealth’s invention differed in providing a step at the end of the communication that Absolute does not have. Absolute has written in their claims on their Xtool agent “without signaling the visual or audible user interface.” Therefore, when Stealth created an audible user interface, it made its invention nonequivalent to Absolutes. Thus, Stealth is found to be non-infringing with their patent.

Bill Goodwine

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)
This case was discussed in class and presented by another student, but I read it as well. This case concerned a patent for a gyroscope owned by Adkins, the inventor of an improved gyroscope, and Lear, the company that sells gyroscopes. Lear and Adkins had a written agreement that allowed Lear to sell Adkin’s patented invention, where Adkins received a small percentage of the net sales price as royalties. In 1957, Lear refused to pay royalties to Adkins with the claim that they were selling gyroscopes that differed from Adkin’s invention. However, the “new” gyroscopes differed only in “size, form, and shape,” but “contain[ed] the same elements.” The essential elements were the same between Adkin’s patent and Lear’s other steel gyroscopes, but the scale and exact assembly was different. Since those did not constitute a substantial difference, the jury of the Supreme Court of California held Adkins in favor and required Lear to pay royalties to Adkins for the sales price of the other gyroscopes sold. This case is an example of clear infringement.

901431048

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968)(67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)
I am the other student^^^(see case above). Other items of note in the case, aside from the summary above, include that the court ruled that infringing the doctrine of equivalence is a matter of fact and that the jury should be the one to establish it. This brings up an interesting qualification, as it seems almost every other case considered with respect to the doctrine of equivalence was decided by judges, not juries.

Brobins

*AMEC Liquidating Trust v. IVAC Corporation, 885 F.2d 1574 (1989)

AMEC had a patent for a thermometer with a plastic cover held on by a hooking type mechanism. IVAC created a thermometer with a cover held on by a ring that created a friction lock. The CAFC held the IVAC invention was non-infringing on the AMEC patent because under the doctrine of equivalents, it did not perform the same function in the same way. The AMEC thermometer cover used an inscription fit, which created deep scratches in the cover. The IVAC thermometer used a friction fit, which only created superficial scratches in the cover. The CAFC found that the superficial scratches did not constitute an inscription fit. Also, the CAFC decided that AMEC did not present any evidence proving that the ring in the IVAC patent was equivalent to the “hook” in the AMEC patent. Because of this, the patent was non-infringing under the doctrine of equivalents.

901444263

*Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574 (1989)

The inventor, Turner, invented a thermometer probe cover that stays on (this was owned by AMEC). It kept the cover on via a sharp metal hook to tear into the cover’s plastic. IVAC developed a thermometer that served a similar purpose of keeping the probe cover on, except that it did so with a ring on the probe (to hold the cover via friction). IVAC intentionally left the probe free of any sharp edge to ease the removal of the probe cover when needed. District Court of Southern California ruled in summary judgment that IVAC’s thermometer probe covers do not infringe AMEC’s. On appeal from AMEC, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. A ring that does not tear the plastic cover is not equivalent to the hook that does. [http://campus.westlaw.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/result/default.wl?mt=CampusLaw&db=ALLCASES&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT4121840350313&origin=Search&sp=003654480-2000&method=TNC&cfid=1&rp=%2fwelcome%2fCampusLaw%2fdefault.wl&eq=welcome%2fCampusLaw&rltdb=CLID_DB1095239350313&srch=TRUE&query=TI(JOHNSTON+%26+IVAC)&vr=2.0&fmqv=s&action=Search&fn=_top&service=Search&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.01]

901471466

*Unitronics Ltd. v. Gharb, 318 Fed.Appx. 902 C.A.Fed. (Dist.Col.) (1989)

This case involved a patent for programmable logic controllers with Global System for Mobile communications. The main issue was infringement based on the capabilities of the programmable logic controllers (PLCs). The court held that alleged infringers PLCs did not contain a “digital recording device having at least one emergency message” or an equivalent. The alleged infringers PLCs also did not have the “data set for transmission to the mobile telephone including alarm information.” The court also ruled that they did not have anything equivalent to either of these claims. Based on the ruling in Warner-Jenkinson the device is not infringing unless it “contains each limitation of the claim, either literally or by an equivalent.” The alleged infringing PLCs did not have a similarity to all of the limitations to the claim and were thus allowed to continue selling their device. [[http://campus.westlaw.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/result/default.wl?mt=CampusLaw&db=ALLFEDS%2cALLSTATES%2cSCT&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT3654057332134&origin=Search&sp=003654480-2000&method=WIN&cfid=1&rp=%2fWelcome%2fCampusLaw%2fdefault.wl&eq=Welcome%2fCampusLaw&rltdb=CLID_DB3890056332134&srch=TRUE&query=unitronics+gharb&vr=2.0&fmqv=s&action=Search&fn=_top&service=Search&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.01]]

901479977

*Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates (1990)

Wilson is suing DGA/Dunlop for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of its patented design for a golf ball. Wilson's patent is for a golf ball modeled as an icosahedron with dimples placed in such a way as to have 6 "great circles" of symmetry instead of the typical 1. The patent specifies where dimples should be placed on the ball and requires that no dimples be placed on the great circles. The accused DGA balls use the same "great circles" design, but with dimples placed on the great circles. DGA's defense is that there is "no principled difference" between its design and a design of the prior art (prior to Wilson's patent). Therefore, allowing Wilson to utilize the doctrine of equivalents would extend protection of claims already in the prior art to Wilson's patent. The CAFC decided that Wilson can only utilize the doctrine of equivalents if it can make a hypothetical claim that literally covers Dunlop's design (in this case, claim a ball with dimples placed on the great circles) and is also nonobvious considering the prior art. Wilson is unable to make such a nonobvious hypothetical claim and therefore no infringement was found.

901338276

* Lemelson v. General Mills, Inc., 968 F.2d 1202 (1992)

Lemelson sued Mattel, alleging that Mattel's "Hot Wheels" toy car track infringed on his patented toy track. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found in favor of the plaintiff. Mattel appealed to the CAFC. The Court held that the "Hot Wheels" track did not contain all the limitations of the patent; it was equivalent to the prior art. That is, Lemelson's patent could not be both valid in light of the prior art and infringed upon by Mattel. Furthermore, upon his first application, claim 3 of Lemelson's patent had five clauses. The PTO examiner found the patent to be indistinguishable from the prior art. Lemelson added clauses [f] and [g] and received a patent. The important parts of the claim were, "[f] said guide means include a pair of spaced apart runner portions for defining the pathway of a vehicle moving over said track, [g] said spaced apart runner portions include upwardly extending rails for guiding the wheels of a vehicle." The Court held that "Hot wheels" did not contain any elements equivalent to the clauses [f] and [g]. The Court also noted that the public is entitled to the PTO record to determine the scope and meaning of claims.

901330223

*Valmont Industries Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Company Inc., 983 F.2d 1039 (1993)

901316153

This case concerns an adaption for center-pivot (i.e. rotating) irrigation systems. The adaption (an apparatus that attaches to the main frame of the sprinkler) allows the corners of a field, normally missed by the standard rotating irrigation system, to be watered. The infringement issue relates to the means by which the position of the sprinkler is detected, relative to the field. The patent uses a method of pivot angle encoders, while the "infringing" patent uses buried electromagnetic cables to guide the sprinkler around the field.

The CAFC ruled that the second device was not infringing, reversing the decision of the district court. The district court argued that the means of controlling the system were equivalent. The CAFC's argument was that while the two irrigation systems performed substantially the same overall function to obtain substantially the same overall result as the claimed invention, the way those results were achieved was substantially different. "Comparison of these two control means compels the conclusion that the claimed control means and Reinke's control means are not structurally equivalent.[...][E]ven though both the control means in the specification and the control means on Reinke's device use electric signals, the structures generating those signals are strikingly different."

Because the doctrine of equivalence requires that the two devices perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same results, the two control systems were not equivalent under the doctrine of equivalence because they did not meet the "way" requirement of the doctrine of equivalence.

*William Bradshaw and Robert Shepherd v. Igloo Products Corp. 1997 WL 543109 (US District Court, N.D.Ill.)

William Bradshaw sued Igloo Products for infringement of a wheeled cooler. Bradshaw’s patent was for a cooler with a pulling handle and two lifting handles, one of which was connected on the same axle as the pulling handle. The Igloo products in question were the Rolling Kool Locker which had a rotatable lifting hand that can also be used to pull the cooler and the Cool Roller which had separate lifting and pulling handles coupled to separate axles. The court decided that the prior art for the Cool Roller was a different patent, the Mason patent. This patent was for a wheeled cooler with separate lifting and pulling handles. The Mason patent was granted before Bradshaw’s patent. The court ruled that the Cool Roller fell under the Mason patent. Therefore, if Bradshaw’s patent were to be expanded to include the Cool Roller’s handles, it would be an invalid patent as a result of the prior art, the Mason patent. This leads to a method of deciding infringement. If the product in question mimics prior art, then it cannot infringe the patent otherwise that patent would be invalid. In deciding infringement for the Rolling Kool Locker, the court decided that it was up to a jury to decide whether the Kool Lockers handles were equivalent to Bradshaw’s patent, since there was no other glaring evidence.

Eric Paul

* Dr. Raymond G. Tronzo v. Biomet Inc. 1998 156 F.3d 1154 (United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit)
In this case Biomet was accused of infringement of an artificial hip prosthesis patented by Dr. Tronzo (patent 4,743,262). The alleged infringement revolved around the shape of the artificial hip socket and the hinge that was inserted into the socket. Patent ‘262 claimed a “generally conical” shape of the hip socket. Biomet’s design contained a strictly hemispherical shape. The court heard evidence in which it was claimed that even though the shapes would have at first glance performed in the same manner, the forces generated on the surface of each implant would be different depending on the shape. Additionally, after hearing expert testimony that suggested any shape would have been equivalent to the conical limitations of the patent claims, the court said that such a ruling would have been impermissible under the all-elements rule of Warner Jenkinson because it would write the “generally conical” shape limitation out of the claims. Therefore, the court held that the accused design did not infringe upon the patent claims under the doctrine of equivalence.

Peter Mitros (901461727)

*Hale Propeller, L.L.C. v Ryan Marine Products Pty., LTD., et al, 151 F. Supp .2d 183 (2001) Connecticut District Court
Ryan owned patent 4411073, issued on 25 October 1983, which concerned devices to measure the pitch of propeller blades. Ryan originally filed the claim on 13 July 1981 it was rejected and then ammended on 4 October 1982. Hale's device called the "Hale Propeller MRI" was developed in 1997. In question are claims 1(b),(c),(f), and 6. A third party, Michigan Wheel Corporation, a distributor of Hale's invention filed for patent invalidity. The important differences between Hale's and Ryan's device are that Hale's does not use gears or worm-drives to rotate the blade and the device does not give direct readouts of the measurements using electric circuits. The issue with claim 1(b) was if a roller was a necessary part of the structure because it prevents skipping of the probe making the measurements more accurate. The court used means-plus-function to rule that the roller was important and Hale did not infringe. The issue with claim 1(c) deals with whether a worm or gear drive is necessary to rotate the blade. Ryan's patent discloses a hand-cranked device, like Hales, but includes a worm-drive. Part of Ryan's ammendment to his claim was to include worm gear to the hand-cranking device and therefore the court used prosecution history estoppel to make their decision because Ryan forfeited that claim (hand-cranked device without worm-drive) in order to get the patent and therefore cannot use doctrine of equivalents to get the claim back. The issue of claim 1(f) was whether the computer in the claim was a special computer needed for the readouts. The court ruled that the claim was not that narrow, but then the court ruled that claim 6 dealt with a computer that receives measurement data from the optical encoder and therefore Hale did not infringe. The patent was also ruled valid using the roller and worm drive to prove that it was non-obvious §103, definitively disclosed §112, and not anticipated by prior art §102(b).

Gillian Allsup

901281608

*Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. Nos. 2010-1145, 2010-117. (2001) United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

This case began as an infringement lawsuit by Siemens Medical Solutions USA, inc. against Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics, Inc. for the alleged infringement of a patent held by Siemens for a scintillator, a part of an x-ray machine that detects radiation. Saint-Gobain owned a patent for a similar device and the circuit court found that this patent infringed on the patent held by Siemens, which was filed earlier. Though the doctrine of equivalents was used to rule infringement, Saint-Gobain was found to have accidentally, rather than willfully infringed and Siemens was awarded 52.3 million dollars.

Siemens filed for patent number 4,958,080 on August 4, 1989. This patent was for a scintillator containing cerium-doped- lutetium oxyorthosilicate. This is a component of a radiation detector that absorbs gamma-ray photons from an x-ray machine and converts them to visible light so the results can be interpreted. Saint-Gobain also produces scintillators, filing patent number 6,6424,420 in 2000 for a cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium orthosilicate. The chemical composition differs from that of the Siemens' patent as %10 of the lutetium is substituted for yttrium. These scintillators were sold by Saint-Gobain to Philips Medical Systems, a competitor of Siemens. The circuit court found that the composition of Saint-Gobain's scintillator preformed largely the same function in the same manner as Siemens' patent, and therefore was infringement under the doctrine of equivalence.

Saint-Gobain filed a motion for a new trail, on the basis that the jury was not told that infringement by the doctrine of equivalence must be proved by clear evidence and argued that damages should be remitted. The Federal Appeals Court did not grant Saint-Gobain a new trial, but did reduces the damages to 44 million.

*Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283 C.A.Fed. (Mich.), 2010
Adams Respiratory Therapeutics patented an extended release formulation of expectorant. The patent was for Mucinex and was new in that it allowed the expectorant (an aspect to medicine which promotes the discharge of phlegm or other fluid from the respiratory tract). Adams brought suit, alleging that generic manufacturer's (Perrigo's) proposed production and marketing of generic version of the product would infringe its patent. The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Gordon J. Quist, J., 2010 WL 565195, granted defendant summary judgment of non-infringement. Plaintiff appealed. Within the patent Adams specified an amount of expectorant in the drug using the words "at least." The court found that "at least" did not prevent the use of the doctrine of equivalents and that the doctrine may apply to patents with specific number ranges. Adams patent stated that it would have at least 3500 hr*ng/mL, while Perrigo was using 3494.38 hr*ng/mL (only a 0.189% difference). Adams argued that this number was not substantially different and thus should represent infringement. Perrigo argued that because the claim does not use words of approximation, Adams cannot expand this element to ensnare Perrigo's product. The court found that the fact that the claim does not contain words of approximation does not affect the analysis-“terms like ‘approximately’ serve only to expand the scope of literal infringement, not to enable application of the doctrine of equivalents.” The proper inquiry is whether the accused value is insubstantially different from the claimed value. Because the court found that there was not a substantial difference between the numbers the doctrine of equivalents applied, the order of the district court was vacated and the case was remanded.

Snooki

*Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Homedics, Inc., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 5230892 (2010)

This case involved a patent for a force-transmitting bearing used with a platform scale. Sunbeam held a patent which specified bearings which were attached to the platform via loose tabs which allowed the bearings to move horizontally. The patent claims required the base of the bearing to be oriented parallel to the platform and remain parallel to the platform at all times. The structure of the accused device was such that the bearings were connection to the platforms using dimples on the lower surface of the platform which the bearings fit into. Sunbeam had criticized prior art which used a similar dimple connection during prosecution beacuse of the potential for unwanted force moments applied by the bearing. The CAFC upheld the District Court's finding of no infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents because bearings which rocked and pivoted, as the accused device did, did not fall within the reach of the patent claims because they did not remain parallel to the platform at all times.

901422128

*Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 264 F.3d 1326 (2001)
Kustom Signals held a patent for a multimode traffic radar system which will show either the fastest speed or the strongest signal. Three of the claims used the word "or" in their wording. Kustom claimed that the "or" was a logical operator meaning one, the other, or both. Applied Concepts had designed a radar system which returned both the fastest speed and the strongest signal. The Court held that the word "or" was to hold its traditional, customary meaning as being exclusive, not inclusive, of the two statements.

901 41 7852

*Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc., 126 F. 3d 1420 (1997)

Sage Products sued Devon Industries for infringement of several patents relating to containers for disposing of hazardous medical waste (needles etc.). Devon counter-sued for infringement of one of its similar patents. The district court held (on summary judgment) that there was no infringement by either party literally or equivalently. The appellate court affirmed.

Devon’s first alleged infringement was of Sage’s container claiming an elongated slot "at the top" of the apparatus for which to deposit waste, and a "barrier over the slot" to prevent contamination. Devon's patent involved a type of elongated slot that was embedded within the container and a hinged element at the opening. The court ruled no literal infringement because the Devon patent did not include the "at the top" and "over" features of the Sage claim. Even though the devices perform the same function the court ruled no equivalent infringement because the hinged element did not "substantially constrict access" to the container, and the slot was not "substantially at the top" of the container. The court was adamant that equivalent function could not negate the “at the top” and “over” limitations of the patent, stating that such power would reduce patent claims to "functional abstracts" devoid of meaningful structure limitations for the public to reference. A second infringement involved in this case resulted in the court ruling that if patent claims specify a function and recite its importance the patentee cannot later accuse an invention devoid of the specified function of infringement.

901419437

*Siemens Medical Solutions USA, INC. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics., F.3d, 2011 WL 651790 (2011)

Siemens developed, manufactured, and sold PET scanners which made use of scintillator crystals consisting of cerium-doped lutetium oxyorthosilicate (LSO). Saint-Gobain manufactures and sells scintillator crystals for use in PET scanners which consisted of cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium orthosilicate (LYSO). This is chemically different from LSO in that some of the lutetium is substituted for by yttrium. In Saint-Gobain's crystals, 10% of the lutetium atoms are substituted for by yttrium atoms (crystals are 10% Y LYSO). In April of 2007, Siemens sued Saint-Gobain for infringement of claims 1 and 2 of Siemens '080 patent for LSO scintillator crystals and photodetectors. Saint-Gobain aregued that its LYSO crystals are not equivalent to those claimed in the '080 patent because their crystals are separately claimed by their '420 patent. A jury trial found Saint-Gobain infringing upon the claims held by Siemens. Saint-Gobains appeals, and claims that the district court erred in jury instructions, claiming that in cases where an alleged equivalent is separately patented, a higher burden of evidence is required. Their reasoning was that the jury's finding of infringement effectively invalidated their '420 patent for LYSO crystals as the ruling of equivalence implied a conclusion of obviousness. The Court of Appeals disagrees, stating that it is well established that separate patentability does not avoid equivalency as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals also disagrees that the jury's finding of infringement invalidates the '420 patent; it only finds the level of LYSO used in practice (10%) is equivalent to Siemen's LSO crystals. Other compositions of LYSO could well be non-equivalent. Using the function-way-result test which asks whether an element of the an accused product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way, the Court of Appeals affirms the juries finding of infringement.

Erich Wolz

*Sunbeam Products Inc. v. Homedics Products Inc. , US Court of Appeals, District Court of Wisconsin (2010)
This case involved a clear example of non-equivalence relating to the doctrine of equivalence. The patent holder Sunbeam Products brought action against competitor Homedics, alleging infringement of its patent for force-transmitting bearings for a platform scale. This case was decided under the district court of Wisconsin. Sunbeam Products had created platform bearings which translated purely horizontally along a platform which transferred all platform loads into purely vertical loads supported by the bearings. A previous patent, ‘326 patent, encompassed bearings which rocked and pivoted. HoMedics's accused scales all include bearings similar to the bearing disclosed in the ′326 patent. Each of the HoMedics bearings is machined with a nose-like protrusion that fits into a corresponding dimple on the underside of the platform. The trial court noted that the accused bearings all rock and pivot within their corresponding dimples in the underside of the platform. Sunbeam did not dispute that the HoMedics bearings rock and pivot in that manner. Sunbeam's argument was that in addition to rocking and pivoting, the HoMedics bearings were capable of some horizontal movement and therefore infringe the ′420 patent.
In light of its claim construction and the undisputed evidence regarding the operation of the bearings in the accused HoMedics products, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. The court determined that no reasonable juror could find that bearings that rock and pivot remain parallel to the underside of the platform; accordingly, it held that the pivoting bearings in all of the accused products do not literally infringe the ′420 patent.

The most important distinction that was made in this case was the following statement. “The doctrine of equivalents is not a license to rewrite the claims to encompass what a patentee believes to be an equivalent structure. That is especially true in a case such as this one, where the accused product is not later-developed technology that is insubstantially different from the claimed invention, but instead embodies disavowed prior art. Thus, the district court correctly held that the accused bearings do not infringe the ′420 patent under the doctrine of equivalents.”

Christine Roetzel - 901425022

*Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U.S. 717 F.2d 1351

NASA and Department of Defense, were trying to build a satellite that would orbit the earth. However, they were unable to do so they had problems with the attitude control. Williams, a man who was working for Hughes Co. was able to figure out the problem. He was able to have lab model on 4/2/60 and it was called "dynamic wheel." Williams presented it to NASA and then Hughes Co and NASA entered an agreement to build the satellite. Williams filed for a patent on 4/18/60 and that became known as "Williams patent."
However, the govt started to build these spacecrafts that used the same systems from the satellite and did not give compensation to Williams. It went to court and the govt said that Williams patent was invalid because it infringed McLean's telescope. Williams rewrote his claims and stated “McLean's infrared telescope does not indicate the instantaneous spin angle position of his body with reference to a fixed external coordinate system, and it does not indicate the orientation of the axis with reference to a fixed external coordinate system." The court found Williams patent valid.
Then, the court looked at the spacecraft and compared it to Williams satellite. They found the following similarites: "(1) each is spin-stabilized; (2) each contains a jet on the periphery, connected by a valve to a tank containing fluid for expulsion substantially parallel to the spin axis; (3) each employs sun sensors to sense ISA position; (4) each requires knowledge of orientation relative to a fixed external coordinate system; (5) each contains radio equipment for communicating with the ground; (6) each transmits spin rate and sun angle information to a ground crew; and (7) in each, jet firing is synchronized with ISA position to effect controlled precession and thus to achieve a desired orientation."
Needless to say the court ruled that govt infringed Williams patent.

901439143

* Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc. 126 F.3d. 1420 (1997)

In this case, Sage Products sued Devon Industries for infringement of two of its patents and Devon countersued Sage for infringement of one of its own patents, all of which relate to the disposal of medical waste products such as needles. In trial and on appeal, the courts held that there was no literal infringement nor infringement by the doctrine of equivalents by any party. Sage claimed that Devon's '251 for a "tortuous path" disposal container infringed on both its '728 patent for a sharps disposal container and its '849 patent for the removal and storage of syringe needles. Devon claimed that Sage's '728 patent infringed on its '592 patent for a disposal container.
** The '728 patent consists of an opening with a curved arc extending above it and another below it (inside the container) with a rotatable L-shaped flap such that waste can be deposited without exposing it again.
** The '849 patent covers a container with notches for removing needles and a "moveable closure" that allows the container to be closed and reopened as needed.
** The '251 patent covers a disposal container with a slotted opening at the top and 2 overlapping but displaced obstructions within the container to prevent accessing material that has been disposed of. It also has a closure that permanently locks once closed.
** The 592 patent covers a container that has a slotted opening and another "baffle" within the container that has another slotted opening horizontally displaced from the first
The courts held that the '251 patent did not infringe on the '728 patent because the patent explicitly described a precise configuration of an opening at the "top of the container" with one obstruction "over said slot" and another below, and that '251 configuration was different. They also held that the '251 patent did not infringe on the '849 patent because there was an important difference between permanent closure and closure that can be reopened. Finally, the '728 patent did not infringe on the '592 patents for similar reasons as the first: the configurations were very different. The '592 patent emphasized a horizontal displacement, which was not part of the '728 patent. The courts held that the use of precise language in patents limited the claims and because disposal containers were reasonably simple and straightforward, different configurations could not be equated.

Julia Potter (jpotter2)

* Kudlacek v. DBC, Inc. 115 F. Supp. 2d 996 (2000)

Owner of Patent No. 5,611,325 for an archery bow stabilizer, Donald Kudlacek, brought an infringement suit against competitor DBC, Inc. DBC counterclaimed, stating that its patent for a peep sight targeting system was being infringed. The claim in question was a "threading" limitation on the stabilizer describing how it is adjusted and secured. The District Court decided that neither Kudlacek's stabilizer nor DBC's peep sight target system were infringed. This was because the accused device, the "Super Stix," was found to not be equivalent to the patented device because it did not infringe all the elements of claim 1. Though the accused device performs, basically, the same function, it does so in a substantially different way; therefore the Doctrine of Equivalents does not apply. Note that the invalidity issue was not settled by finding that the patent was not infringed.

901437068

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)

Adkins v. Lear discussed the assembly and sale of a certain type of gyroscope. The gyroscope design had originally been borrowed by Lear, from Adkins under the terms that Lear would pay a small percentage of their profits to Adkins since Lear was not the original inventor of the gyroscope mechanical design. Conflicts arose when Lear refused to pay Adkins under the claim that their new gyroscope was a unique design that differed from the original design contracted from Adkins. The judges determined that since the new design was similar to the original in all the necessary inner working components and only differed in the external aesthetic features, the new design infringed on the old since it did not provide any new or useful feature. Based on this judgment Lear was required to pay Adkins for any sales of the new gyroscope.

901438174

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)

I hate to be repetitive, but I read the same case. I will reiterate, it is a case about a dispute over profit sharing. Adkins invented the gyroscope and required Lear to share profits if he used the design. The dispute arose when Lear made an improvement upon the designed and refused to pay profits on this "new and improved" design. This design was really just the innards reworked into a new shape without altering the size or scale. This was ruled to be equivalent to the original design, reinforcing the underlying ideas of the doctrine of equivalents.

cmadiga1

Lemelson v. Mattel (1992), (968 F.2d 1202)

Lemelson sued Mattel, saying that their hotwheels toys infringed on his patent for a flexible track for toy cars. In the original case, Hotwheels was ruled to have infringed on Lemelson's patent. The history of the patents in the toy race car tracks was important in this case. Before Lemelson received his patent, Giardiol had a patent for a flexible car track with an internal support. Mattel's track was very similar in all aspects of the Giardiol patent, but did not have an internal frame. Lemelson's patent was originally denied as being completely anticipated by Giardiol. However by adding claims to the vertical supports which define the track and keep the car on the track Lemelson was able to distinguish his product and obtain a patent. Therefore, these were ruled as the defining characteristics of Lemelson's patent. In the original case, the jury found that Hotwheels product did not contain these characteristics. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the previous ruling saying that the jury had made a logical error.

Andy Stulc

Doctrine of Equivalents Case List

2011-04-04T13:29:06Z

Kriester:

Add your case to the list with a one-paragraph (approximately 250 words) summary of the facts at issues, i.e., "an umbrella is or is not equivalent to a parasol because..."

Please put the cases in chronological order. If two are from the same year, then put them in alphabetical order. Also put your name, your login name or NDID number with your case. Use the following for a template.

* Goodwine v. Batill, 123 US 4567 (1066)
This case concerned a patent for an iPad and the patentee sued the maker of an iPod for infringement. The important part of the claim was "a device for playing music and other media comprising a touch screen..." The court held that iPod infringed the iPad patent because the ... was equivalent to the ... because ...

Patrick Lane (901431645)
* Union Paper-Bag Machine Company v. Murphy (1877)
In this case, the patents in question were machines used to make paper bags. The machines are loaded with large rolls of paper and then stamp out the bag pattern, or "blanks," which are then folded and pasted to make a paper bag. Union Paper was granted a patent in 1859 for this type of machine which used a long, straight knife which would move up and down to punch the pattern out of the paper. In 1874, Murphy was granted a patent for a similar device that used a serrated knife which cut the paper from below as the rolls moved over it. Union is suing Murphy for infringement, claiming the devices which cut the paper in each machine are substantially equivalent, and therefore are under protection by Union's 1859 patent. Murphy argued that the serrated knife is an improvement over the straight knife, and that the method of cutting was different enough to constitute patent protection. However, the expert witness explained that the paper is essentially being cut in the same way in each device: a fast moving, sharp edge is slicing through the paper. Even though one knife was serrated, the cutting occurs in the same mechanical fashion, and therefore is equivalent. The court found in favor of Union, stating that the two methods of cutting the blanks were substantially equal because they performed the same function in the same way.

** I had also read this case. The above is a good summary, though perhaps also worth noting is the fact that the court made specific mention to the fact that changing the name of the invention and no bearing on its nonequivalence (though this seems pretty obvious) - Kurt Riester

hwong1
* Absolute Software Inc. v. Stealth Signal Inc.
The patents in question deal with security apparatus’ that are used to retrieve lost or stolen electronic devices. Absolute accused Stealth of infringing on their patent, and in effect Stealth filed a counterclaim stating that Absolute infringed on another prior art. Both companies filed for summary judgment stating that neither infringed on any patent. The doctrine of equivalence was used to determine if either company infringed on other patents. Absolute proves that It does not infringe on the prior art because the transmission message to the central site is not done at a semi-random rate. Absolute did not literally infringe, but the doctrine of equivalence was needed to verify. The courts found that since Absolute’s product makes the call to the central site every 24.5 hours, it is not ‘random’ by any means but rather ‘uniformly randomly distributed’. Thus, Absolute does not infringe on its prior art. Stealth was analyzed on in infringing on Absolute by the use of an XTool agent. Doctrine of Equivalence is again applied, finding that Stealth’s invention differed in providing a step at the end of the communication that Absolute does not have. Absolute has written in their claims on their Xtool agent “without signaling the visual or audible user interface.” Therefore, when Stealth created an audible user interface, it made its invention nonequivalent to Absolutes. Thus, Stealth is found to be non-infringing with their patent.

Bill Goodwine

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)
This case was discussed in class and presented by another student, but I read it as well. This case concerned a patent for a gyroscope owned by Adkins, the inventor of an improved gyroscope, and Lear, the company that sells gyroscopes. Lear and Adkins had a written agreement that allowed Lear to sell Adkin’s patented invention, where Adkins received a small percentage of the net sales price as royalties. In 1957, Lear refused to pay royalties to Adkins with the claim that they were selling gyroscopes that differed from Adkin’s invention. However, the “new” gyroscopes differed only in “size, form, and shape,” but “contain[ed] the same elements.” The essential elements were the same between Adkin’s patent and Lear’s other steel gyroscopes, but the scale and exact assembly was different. Since those did not constitute a substantial difference, the jury of the Supreme Court of California held Adkins in favor and required Lear to pay royalties to Adkins for the sales price of the other gyroscopes sold. This case is an example of clear infringement.

901431048

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968)(67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)
I am the other student^^^(see case above). Other items of note in the case, aside from the summary above, include that the court ruled that infringing the doctrine of equivalence is a matter of fact and that the jury should be the one to establish it. This brings up an interesting qualification, as it seems almost every other case considered with respect to the doctrine of equivalence was decided by judges, not juries.

Brobins

*AMEC Liquidating Trust v. IVAC Corporation, 885 F.2d 1574 (1989)

AMEC had a patent for a thermometer with a plastic cover held on by a hooking type mechanism. IVAC created a thermometer with a cover held on by a ring that created a friction lock. The CAFC held the IVAC invention was non-infringing on the AMEC patent because under the doctrine of equivalents, it did not perform the same function in the same way. The AMEC thermometer cover used an inscription fit, which created deep scratches in the cover. The IVAC thermometer used a friction fit, which only created superficial scratches in the cover. The CAFC found that the superficial scratches did not constitute an inscription fit. Also, the CAFC decided that AMEC did not present any evidence proving that the ring in the IVAC patent was equivalent to the “hook” in the AMEC patent. Because of this, the patent was non-infringing under the doctrine of equivalents.

901444263

*Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574 (1989)

The inventor, Turner, invented a thermometer probe cover that stays on (this was owned by AMEC). It kept the cover on via a sharp metal hook to tear into the cover’s plastic. IVAC developed a thermometer that served a similar purpose of keeping the probe cover on, except that it did so with a ring on the probe (to hold the cover via friction). IVAC intentionally left the probe free of any sharp edge to ease the removal of the probe cover when needed. District Court of Southern California ruled in summary judgment that IVAC’s thermometer probe covers do not infringe AMEC’s. On appeal from AMEC, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. A ring that does not tear the plastic cover is not equivalent to the hook that does. [http://campus.westlaw.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/result/default.wl?mt=CampusLaw&db=ALLCASES&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT4121840350313&origin=Search&sp=003654480-2000&method=TNC&cfid=1&rp=%2fwelcome%2fCampusLaw%2fdefault.wl&eq=welcome%2fCampusLaw&rltdb=CLID_DB1095239350313&srch=TRUE&query=TI(JOHNSTON+%26+IVAC)&vr=2.0&fmqv=s&action=Search&fn=_top&service=Search&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.01]

901471466

*Unitronics Ltd. v. Gharb, 318 Fed.Appx. 902 C.A.Fed. (Dist.Col.) (1989)

This case involved a patent for programmable logic controllers with Global System for Mobile communications. The main issue was infringement based on the capabilities of the programmable logic controllers (PLCs). The court held that alleged infringers PLCs did not contain a “digital recording device having at least one emergency message” or an equivalent. The alleged infringers PLCs also did not have the “data set for transmission to the mobile telephone including alarm information.” The court also ruled that they did not have anything equivalent to either of these claims. Based on the ruling in Warner-Jenkinson the device is not infringing unless it “contains each limitation of the claim, either literally or by an equivalent.” The alleged infringing PLCs did not have a similarity to all of the limitations to the claim and were thus allowed to continue selling their device. [[http://campus.westlaw.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/result/default.wl?mt=CampusLaw&db=ALLFEDS%2cALLSTATES%2cSCT&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT3654057332134&origin=Search&sp=003654480-2000&method=WIN&cfid=1&rp=%2fWelcome%2fCampusLaw%2fdefault.wl&eq=Welcome%2fCampusLaw&rltdb=CLID_DB3890056332134&srch=TRUE&query=unitronics+gharb&vr=2.0&fmqv=s&action=Search&fn=_top&service=Search&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.01]]

901479977

*Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates (1990)

Wilson is suing DGA/Dunlop for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of its patented design for a golf ball. Wilson's patent is for a golf ball modeled as an icosahedron with dimples placed in such a way as to have 6 "great circles" of symmetry instead of the typical 1. The patent specifies where dimples should be placed on the ball and requires that no dimples be placed on the great circles. The accused DGA balls use the same "great circles" design, but with dimples placed on the great circles. DGA's defense is that there is "no principled difference" between its design and a design of the prior art (prior to Wilson's patent). Therefore, allowing Wilson to utilize the doctrine of equivalents would extend protection of claims already in the prior art to Wilson's patent. The CAFC decided that Wilson can only utilize the doctrine of equivalents if it can make a hypothetical claim that literally covers Dunlop's design (in this case, claim a ball with dimples placed on the great circles) and is also nonobvious considering the prior art. Wilson is unable to make such a nonobvious hypothetical claim and therefore no infringement was found.

901338276

* Lemelson v. General Mills, Inc., 968 F.2d 1202 (1992)

Lemelson sued Mattel, alleging that Mattel's "Hot Wheels" toy car track infringed on his patented toy track. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found in favor of the plaintiff. Mattel appealed to the CAFC. The Court held that the "Hot Wheels" track did not contain all the limitations of the patent; it was equivalent to the prior art. That is, Lemelson's patent could not be both valid in light of the prior art and infringed upon by Mattel. Furthermore, upon his first application, claim 3 of Lemelson's patent had five clauses. The PTO examiner found the patent to be indistinguishable from the prior art. Lemelson added clauses [f] and [g] and received a patent. The important parts of the claim were, "[f] said guide means include a pair of spaced apart runner portions for defining the pathway of a vehicle moving over said track, [g] said spaced apart runner portions include upwardly extending rails for guiding the wheels of a vehicle." The Court held that "Hot wheels" did not contain any elements equivalent to the clauses [f] and [g]. The Court also noted that the public is entitled to the PTO record to determine the scope and meaning of claims.

901330223

*Valmont Industries Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Company Inc., 983 F.2d 1039 (1993)

901316153

This case concerns an adaption for center-pivot (i.e. rotating) irrigation systems. The adaption (an apparatus that attaches to the main frame of the sprinkler) allows the corners of a field, normally missed by the standard rotating irrigation system, to be watered. The infringement issue relates to the means by which the position of the sprinkler is detected, relative to the field. The patent uses a method of pivot angle encoders, while the "infringing" patent uses buried electromagnetic cables to guide the sprinkler around the field.

The CAFC ruled that the second device was not infringing, reversing the decision of the district court. The district court argued that the means of controlling the system were equivalent. The CAFC's argument was that while the two irrigation systems performed substantially the same overall function to obtain substantially the same overall result as the claimed invention, the way those results were achieved was substantially different. "Comparison of these two control means compels the conclusion that the claimed control means and Reinke's control means are not structurally equivalent.[...][E]ven though both the control means in the specification and the control means on Reinke's device use electric signals, the structures generating those signals are strikingly different."

Because the doctrine of equivalence requires that the two devices perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same results, the two control systems were not equivalent under the doctrine of equivalence because they did not meet the "way" requirement of the doctrine of equivalence.

*William Bradshaw and Robert Shepherd v. Igloo Products Corp. 1997 WL 543109 (US District Court, N.D.Ill.)

William Bradshaw sued Igloo Products for infringement of a wheeled cooler. Bradshaw’s patent was for a cooler with a pulling handle and two lifting handles, one of which was connected on the same axle as the pulling handle. The Igloo products in question were the Rolling Kool Locker which had a rotatable lifting hand that can also be used to pull the cooler and the Cool Roller which had separate lifting and pulling handles coupled to separate axles. The court decided that the prior art for the Cool Roller was a different patent, the Mason patent. This patent was for a wheeled cooler with separate lifting and pulling handles. The Mason patent was granted before Bradshaw’s patent. The court ruled that the Cool Roller fell under the Mason patent. Therefore, if Bradshaw’s patent were to be expanded to include the Cool Roller’s handles, it would be an invalid patent as a result of the prior art, the Mason patent. This leads to a method of deciding infringement. If the product in question mimics prior art, then it cannot infringe the patent otherwise that patent would be invalid. In deciding infringement for the Rolling Kool Locker, the court decided that it was up to a jury to decide whether the Kool Lockers handles were equivalent to Bradshaw’s patent, since there was no other glaring evidence.

Eric Paul

* Dr. Raymond G. Tronzo v. Biomet Inc. 1998 156 F.3d 1154 (United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit)
In this case Biomet was accused of infringement of an artificial hip prosthesis patented by Dr. Tronzo (patent 4,743,262). The alleged infringement revolved around the shape of the artificial hip socket and the hinge that was inserted into the socket. Patent ‘262 claimed a “generally conical” shape of the hip socket. Biomet’s design contained a strictly hemispherical shape. The court heard evidence in which it was claimed that even though the shapes would have at first glance performed in the same manner, the forces generated on the surface of each implant would be different depending on the shape. Additionally, after hearing expert testimony that suggested any shape would have been equivalent to the conical limitations of the patent claims, the court said that such a ruling would have been impermissible under the all-elements rule of Warner Jenkinson because it would write the “generally conical” shape limitation out of the claims. Therefore, the court held that the accused design did not infringe upon the patent claims under the doctrine of equivalence.

Peter Mitros (901461727)

*Hale Propeller, L.L.C. v Ryan Marine Products Pty., LTD., et al, 151 F. Supp .2d 183 (2001) Connecticut District Court
Ryan owned patent 4411073, issued on 25 October 1983, which concerned devices to measure the pitch of propeller blades. Ryan originally filed the claim on 13 July 1981 it was rejected and then ammended on 4 October 1982. Hale's device called the "Hale Propeller MRI" was developed in 1997. In question are claims 1(b),(c),(f), and 6. A third party, Michigan Wheel Corporation, a distributor of Hale's invention filed for patent invalidity. The important differences between Hale's and Ryan's device are that Hale's does not use gears or worm-drives to rotate the blade and the device does not give direct readouts of the measurements using electric circuits. The issue with claim 1(b) was if a roller was a necessary part of the structure because it prevents skipping of the probe making the measurements more accurate. The court used means-plus-function to rule that the roller was important and Hale did not infringe. The issue with claim 1(c) deals with whether a worm or gear drive is necessary to rotate the blade. Ryan's patent discloses a hand-cranked device, like Hales, but includes a worm-drive. Part of Ryan's ammendment to his claim was to include worm gear to the hand-cranking device and therefore the court used prosecution history estoppel to make their decision because Ryan forfeited that claim (hand-cranked device without worm-drive) in order to get the patent and therefore cannot use doctrine of equivalents to get the claim back. The issue of claim 1(f) was whether the computer in the claim was a special computer needed for the readouts. The court ruled that the claim was not that narrow, but then the court ruled that claim 6 dealt with a computer that receives measurement data from the optical encoder and therefore Hale did not infringe. The patent was also ruled valid using the roller and worm drive to prove that it was non-obvious §103, definitively disclosed §112, and not anticipated by prior art §102(b).

Gillian Allsup

901281608

*Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. Nos. 2010-1145, 2010-117. (2001) United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

This case began as an infringement lawsuit by Siemens Medical Solutions USA, inc. against Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics, Inc. for the alleged infringement of a patent held by Siemens for a scintillator, a part of an x-ray machine that detects radiation. Saint-Gobain owned a patent for a similar device and the circuit court found that this patent infringed on the patent held by Siemens, which was filed earlier. Though the doctrine of equivalents was used to rule infringement, Saint-Gobain was found to have accidentally, rather than willfully infringed and Siemens was awarded 52.3 million dollars.

Siemens filed for patent number 4,958,080 on August 4, 1989. This patent was for a scintillator containing cerium-doped- lutetium oxyorthosilicate. This is a component of a radiation detector that absorbs gamma-ray photons from an x-ray machine and converts them to visible light so the results can be interpreted. Saint-Gobain also produces scintillators, filing patent number 6,6424,420 in 2000 for a cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium orthosilicate. The chemical composition differs from that of the Siemens' patent as %10 of the lutetium is substituted for yttrium. These scintillators were sold by Saint-Gobain to Philips Medical Systems, a competitor of Siemens. The circuit court found that the composition of Saint-Gobain's scintillator preformed largely the same function in the same manner as Siemens' patent, and therefore was infringement under the doctrine of equivalence.

Saint-Gobain filed a motion for a new trail, on the basis that the jury was not told that infringement by the doctrine of equivalence must be proved by clear evidence and argued that damages should be remitted. The Federal Appeals Court did not grant Saint-Gobain a new trial, but did reduces the damages to 44 million.

*Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283 C.A.Fed. (Mich.), 2010
Adams Respiratory Therapeutics patented an extended release formulation of expectorant. The patent was for Mucinex and was new in that it allowed the expectorant (an aspect to medicine which promotes the discharge of phlegm or other fluid from the respiratory tract). Adams brought suit, alleging that generic manufacturer's (Perrigo's) proposed production and marketing of generic version of the product would infringe its patent. The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Gordon J. Quist, J., 2010 WL 565195, granted defendant summary judgment of non-infringement. Plaintiff appealed. Within the patent Adams specified an amount of expectorant in the drug using the words "at least." The court found that "at least" did not prevent the use of the doctrine of equivalents and that the doctrine may apply to patents with specific number ranges. Adams patent stated that it would have at least 3500 hr*ng/mL, while Perrigo was using 3494.38 hr*ng/mL (only a 0.189% difference). Adams argued that this number was not substantially different and thus should represent infringement. Perrigo argued that because the claim does not use words of approximation, Adams cannot expand this element to ensnare Perrigo's product. The court found that the fact that the claim does not contain words of approximation does not affect the analysis-“terms like ‘approximately’ serve only to expand the scope of literal infringement, not to enable application of the doctrine of equivalents.” The proper inquiry is whether the accused value is insubstantially different from the claimed value. Because the court found that there was not a substantial difference between the numbers the doctrine of equivalents applied, the order of the district court was vacated and the case was remanded.

Snooki

*Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Homedics, Inc., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 5230892 (2010)

This case involved a patent for a force-transmitting bearing used with a platform scale. Sunbeam held a patent which specified bearings which were attached to the platform via loose tabs which allowed the bearings to move horizontally. The patent claims required the base of the bearing to be oriented parallel to the platform and remain parallel to the platform at all times. The structure of the accused device was such that the bearings were connection to the platforms using dimples on the lower surface of the platform which the bearings fit into. Sunbeam had criticized prior art which used a similar dimple connection during prosecution beacuse of the potential for unwanted force moments applied by the bearing. The CAFC upheld the District Court's finding of no infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents because bearings which rocked and pivoted, as the accused device did, did not fall within the reach of the patent claims because they did not remain parallel to the platform at all times.

901422128

*Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 264 F.3d 1326 (2001)
Kustom Signals held a patent for a multimode traffic radar system which will show either the fastest speed or the strongest signal. Three of the claims used the word "or" in their wording. Kustom claimed that the "or" was a logical operator meaning one, the other, or both. Applied Concepts had designed a radar system which returned both the fastest speed and the strongest signal. The Court held that the word "or" was to hold its traditional, customary meaning as being exclusive, not inclusive, of the two statements.

901 41 7852

*Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc., 126 F. 3d 1420 (1997)

Sage Products sued Devon Industries for infringement of several patents relating to containers for disposing of hazardous medical waste (needles etc.). Devon counter-sued for infringement of one of its similar patents. The district court held (on summary judgment) that there was no infringement by either party literally or equivalently. The appellate court affirmed.

Devon’s first alleged infringement was of Sage’s container claiming an elongated slot "at the top" of the apparatus for which to deposit waste, and a "barrier over the slot" to prevent contamination. Devon's patent involved a type of elongated slot that was embedded within the container and a hinged element at the opening. The court ruled no literal infringement because the Devon patent did not include the "at the top" and "over" features of the Sage claim. Even though the devices perform the same function the court ruled no equivalent infringement because the hinged element did not "substantially constrict access" to the container, and the slot was not "substantially at the top" of the container. The court was adamant that equivalent function could not negate the “at the top” and “over” limitations of the patent, stating that such power would reduce patent claims to "functional abstracts" devoid of meaningful structure limitations for the public to reference. A second infringement involved in this case resulted in the court ruling that if patent claims specify a function and recite its importance the patentee cannot later accuse an invention devoid of the specified function of infringement.

901419437

*Siemens Medical Solutions USA, INC. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics., F.3d, 2011 WL 651790 (2011)

Siemens developed, manufactured, and sold PET scanners which made use of scintillator crystals consisting of cerium-doped lutetium oxyorthosilicate (LSO). Saint-Gobain manufactures and sells scintillator crystals for use in PET scanners which consisted of cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium orthosilicate (LYSO). This is chemically different from LSO in that some of the lutetium is substituted for by yttrium. In Saint-Gobain's crystals, 10% of the lutetium atoms are substituted for by yttrium atoms (crystals are 10% Y LYSO). In April of 2007, Siemens sued Saint-Gobain for infringement of claims 1 and 2 of Siemens '080 patent for LSO scintillator crystals and photodetectors. Saint-Gobain aregued that its LYSO crystals are not equivalent to those claimed in the '080 patent because their crystals are separately claimed by their '420 patent. A jury trial found Saint-Gobain infringing upon the claims held by Siemens. Saint-Gobains appeals, and claims that the district court erred in jury instructions, claiming that in cases where an alleged equivalent is separately patented, a higher burden of evidence is required. Their reasoning was that the jury's finding of infringement effectively invalidated their '420 patent for LYSO crystals as the ruling of equivalence implied a conclusion of obviousness. The Court of Appeals disagrees, stating that it is well established that separate patentability does not avoid equivalency as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals also disagrees that the jury's finding of infringement invalidates the '420 patent; it only finds the level of LYSO used in practice (10%) is equivalent to Siemen's LSO crystals. Other compositions of LYSO could well be non-equivalent. Using the function-way-result test which asks whether an element of the an accused product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way, the Court of Appeals affirms the juries finding of infringement.

Erich Wolz

*Sunbeam Products Inc. v. Homedics Products Inc. , US Court of Appeals, District Court of Wisconsin (2010)
This case involved a clear example of non-equivalence relating to the doctrine of equivalence. The patent holder Sunbeam Products brought action against competitor Homedics, alleging infringement of its patent for force-transmitting bearings for a platform scale. This case was decided under the district court of Wisconsin. Sunbeam Products had created platform bearings which translated purely horizontally along a platform which transferred all platform loads into purely vertical loads supported by the bearings. A previous patent, ‘326 patent, encompassed bearings which rocked and pivoted. HoMedics's accused scales all include bearings similar to the bearing disclosed in the ′326 patent. Each of the HoMedics bearings is machined with a nose-like protrusion that fits into a corresponding dimple on the underside of the platform. The trial court noted that the accused bearings all rock and pivot within their corresponding dimples in the underside of the platform. Sunbeam did not dispute that the HoMedics bearings rock and pivot in that manner. Sunbeam's argument was that in addition to rocking and pivoting, the HoMedics bearings were capable of some horizontal movement and therefore infringe the ′420 patent.
In light of its claim construction and the undisputed evidence regarding the operation of the bearings in the accused HoMedics products, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. The court determined that no reasonable juror could find that bearings that rock and pivot remain parallel to the underside of the platform; accordingly, it held that the pivoting bearings in all of the accused products do not literally infringe the ′420 patent.

The most important distinction that was made in this case was the following statement. “The doctrine of equivalents is not a license to rewrite the claims to encompass what a patentee believes to be an equivalent structure. That is especially true in a case such as this one, where the accused product is not later-developed technology that is insubstantially different from the claimed invention, but instead embodies disavowed prior art. Thus, the district court correctly held that the accused bearings do not infringe the ′420 patent under the doctrine of equivalents.”

Christine Roetzel - 901425022

*Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U.S. 717 F.2d 1351

NASA and Department of Defense, were trying to build a satellite that would orbit the earth. However, they were unable to do so they had problems with the attitude control. Williams, a man who was working for Hughes Co. was able to figure out the problem. He was able to have lab model on 4/2/60 and it was called "dynamic wheel." Williams presented it to NASA and then Hughes Co and NASA entered an agreement to build the satellite. Williams filed for a patent on 4/18/60 and that became known as "Williams patent."
However, the govt started to build these spacecrafts that used the same systems from the satellite and did not give compensation to Williams. It went to court and the govt said that Williams patent was invalid because it infringed McLean's telescope. Williams rewrote his claims and stated “McLean's infrared telescope does not indicate the instantaneous spin angle position of his body with reference to a fixed external coordinate system, and it does not indicate the orientation of the axis with reference to a fixed external coordinate system." The court found Williams patent valid.
Then, the court looked at the spacecraft and compared it to Williams satellite. They found the following similarites: "(1) each is spin-stabilized; (2) each contains a jet on the periphery, connected by a valve to a tank containing fluid for expulsion substantially parallel to the spin axis; (3) each employs sun sensors to sense ISA position; (4) each requires knowledge of orientation relative to a fixed external coordinate system; (5) each contains radio equipment for communicating with the ground; (6) each transmits spin rate and sun angle information to a ground crew; and (7) in each, jet firing is synchronized with ISA position to effect controlled precession and thus to achieve a desired orientation."
Needless to say the court ruled that govt infringed Williams patent.

901439143

* Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc. 126 F.3d. 1420 (1997)

In this case, Sage Products sued Devon Industries for infringement of two of its patents and Devon countersued Sage for infringement of one of its own patents, all of which relate to the disposal of medical waste products such as needles. In trial and on appeal, the courts held that there was no literal infringement nor infringement by the doctrine of equivalents by any party. Sage claimed that Devon's '251 for a "tortuous path" disposal container infringed on both its '728 patent for a sharps disposal container and its '849 patent for the removal and storage of syringe needles. Devon claimed that Sage's '728 patent infringed on its '592 patent for a disposal container.
** The '728 patent consists of an opening with a curved arc extending above it and another below it (inside the container) with a rotatable L-shaped flap such that waste can be deposited without exposing it again.
** The '849 patent covers a container with notches for removing needles and a "moveable closure" that allows the container to be closed and reopened as needed.
** The '251 patent covers a disposal container with a slotted opening at the top and 2 overlapping but displaced obstructions within the container to prevent accessing material that has been disposed of. It also has a closure that permanently locks once closed.
** The 592 patent covers a container that has a slotted opening and another "baffle" within the container that has another slotted opening horizontally displaced from the first
The courts held that the '251 patent did not infringe on the '728 patent because the patent explicitly described a precise configuration of an opening at the "top of the container" with one obstruction "over said slot" and another below, and that '251 configuration was different. They also held that the '251 patent did not infringe on the '849 patent because there was an important difference between permanent closure and closure that can be reopened. Finally, the '728 patent did not infringe on the '592 patents for similar reasons as the first: the configurations were very different. The '592 patent emphasized a horizontal displacement, which was not part of the '728 patent. The courts held that the use of precise language in patents limited the claims and because disposal containers were reasonably simple and straightforward, different configurations could not be equated.

Julia Potter (jpotter2)

* Kudlacek v. DBC, Inc. 115 F. Supp. 2d 996 (2000)

Owner of Patent No. 5,611,325 for an archery bow stabilizer, Donald Kudlacek, brought an infringement suit against competitor DBC, Inc. DBC counterclaimed, stating that its patent for a peep sight targeting system was being infringed. The claim in question was a "threading" limitation on the stabilizer describing how it is adjusted and secured. The District Court decided that neither Kudlacek's stabilizer nor DBC's peep sight target system were infringed. This was because the accused device, the "Super Stix," was found to not be equivalent to the patented device because it did not infringe all the elements of claim 1. Though the accused device performs, basically, the same function, it does so in a substantially different way; therefore the Doctrine of Equivalents does not apply. Note that the invalidity issue was not settled by finding that the patent was not infringed.

901437068

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)

Adkins v. Lear discussed the assembly and sale of a certain type of gyroscope. The gyroscope design had originally been borrowed by Lear, from Adkins under the terms that Lear would pay a small percentage of their profits to Adkins since Lear was not the original inventor of the gyroscope mechanical design. Conflicts arose when Lear refused to pay Adkins under the claim that their new gyroscope was a unique design that differed from the original design contracted from Adkins. The judges determined that since the new design was similar to the original in all the necessary inner working components and only differed in the external aesthetic features, the new design infringed on the old since it did not provide any new or useful feature. Based on this judgment Lear was required to pay Adkins for any sales of the new gyroscope.

901438174

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)

I hate to be repetitive, but I read the same case. I will reiterate, it is a case about a dispute over profit sharing. Adkins invented the gyroscope and required Lear to share profits if he used the design. The dispute arose when Lear made an improvement upon the designed and refused to pay profits on this "new and improved" design. This design was really just the innards reworked into a new shape without altering the size or scale. This was ruled to be equivalent to the original design, reinforcing the underlying ideas of the doctrine of equivalents.

cmadiga1

Lemelson v. Mattel (1992), (968 F.2d 1202)

Lemelson sued Mattel, saying that their hotwheels toys infringed on his patent for a flexible track for toy cars. In the original case, Hotwheels was ruled to have infringed on Lemelson's patent. The history of the patents in the toy race car tracks was important in this case. Before Lemelson received his patent, Giardiol had a patent for a flexible car track with an internal support. Mattel's track was very similar in all aspects of the Giardiol patent, but did not have an internal frame. Lemelson's patent was originally denied as being completely anticipated by Giardiol. However by adding claims to the vertical supports which define the track and keep the car on the track Lemelson was able to distinguish his product and obtain a patent. Therefore, these were ruled as the defining characteristics of Lemelson's patent. In the original case, the jury found that Hotwheels product did not contain these characteristics. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the previous ruling saying that the jury had made a logical error.

Andy Stulc

Doctrine of Equivalents Case List

2011-04-04T13:28:26Z

Kriester:

Add your case to the list with a one-paragraph (approximately 250 words) summary of the facts at issues, i.e., "an umbrella is or is not equivalent to a parasol because..."

Please put the cases in chronological order. If two are from the same year, then put them in alphabetical order. Also put your name, your login name or NDID number with your case. Use the following for a template.

* Goodwine v. Batill, 123 US 4567 (1066)
This case concerned a patent for an iPad and the patentee sued the maker of an iPod for infringement. The important part of the claim was "a device for playing music and other media comprising a touch screen..." The court held that iPod infringed the iPad patent because the ... was equivalent to the ... because ...

Patrick Lane (901431645)
* Union Paper-Bag Machine Company v. Murphy (1877)
In this case, the patents in question were machines used to make paper bags. The machines are loaded with large rolls of paper and then stamp out the bag pattern, or "blanks," which are then folded and pasted to make a paper bag. Union Paper was granted a patent in 1859 for this type of machine which used a long, straight knife which would move up and down to punch the pattern out of the paper. In 1874, Murphy was granted a patent for a similar device that used a serrated knife which cut the paper from below as the rolls moved over it. Union is suing Murphy for infringement, claiming the devices which cut the paper in each machine are substantially equivalent, and therefore are under protection by Union's 1859 patent. Murphy argued that the serrated knife is an improvement over the straight knife, and that the method of cutting was different enough to constitute patent protection. However, the expert witness explained that the paper is essentially being cut in the same way in each device: a fast moving, sharp edge is slicing through the paper. Even though one knife was serrated, the cutting occurs in the same mechanical fashion, and therefore is equivalent. The court found in favor of Union, stating that the two methods of cutting the blanks were substantially equal because they performed the same function in the same way.
** I had also read this case. The above is a good summary, though perhaps also worth noting is the fact that the court made specific mention to the fact that changing the name of the invention and no bearing on its nonequivalence (though this seems pretty obvious) - Kurt Riester
hwong1
* Absolute Software Inc. v. Stealth Signal Inc.
The patents in question deal with security apparatus’ that are used to retrieve lost or stolen electronic devices. Absolute accused Stealth of infringing on their patent, and in effect Stealth filed a counterclaim stating that Absolute infringed on another prior art. Both companies filed for summary judgment stating that neither infringed on any patent. The doctrine of equivalence was used to determine if either company infringed on other patents. Absolute proves that It does not infringe on the prior art because the transmission message to the central site is not done at a semi-random rate. Absolute did not literally infringe, but the doctrine of equivalence was needed to verify. The courts found that since Absolute’s product makes the call to the central site every 24.5 hours, it is not ‘random’ by any means but rather ‘uniformly randomly distributed’. Thus, Absolute does not infringe on its prior art. Stealth was analyzed on in infringing on Absolute by the use of an XTool agent. Doctrine of Equivalence is again applied, finding that Stealth’s invention differed in providing a step at the end of the communication that Absolute does not have. Absolute has written in their claims on their Xtool agent “without signaling the visual or audible user interface.” Therefore, when Stealth created an audible user interface, it made its invention nonequivalent to Absolutes. Thus, Stealth is found to be non-infringing with their patent.

Bill Goodwine

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)
This case was discussed in class and presented by another student, but I read it as well. This case concerned a patent for a gyroscope owned by Adkins, the inventor of an improved gyroscope, and Lear, the company that sells gyroscopes. Lear and Adkins had a written agreement that allowed Lear to sell Adkin’s patented invention, where Adkins received a small percentage of the net sales price as royalties. In 1957, Lear refused to pay royalties to Adkins with the claim that they were selling gyroscopes that differed from Adkin’s invention. However, the “new” gyroscopes differed only in “size, form, and shape,” but “contain[ed] the same elements.” The essential elements were the same between Adkin’s patent and Lear’s other steel gyroscopes, but the scale and exact assembly was different. Since those did not constitute a substantial difference, the jury of the Supreme Court of California held Adkins in favor and required Lear to pay royalties to Adkins for the sales price of the other gyroscopes sold. This case is an example of clear infringement.

901431048

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968)(67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)
I am the other student^^^(see case above). Other items of note in the case, aside from the summary above, include that the court ruled that infringing the doctrine of equivalence is a matter of fact and that the jury should be the one to establish it. This brings up an interesting qualification, as it seems almost every other case considered with respect to the doctrine of equivalence was decided by judges, not juries.

Brobins

*AMEC Liquidating Trust v. IVAC Corporation, 885 F.2d 1574 (1989)

AMEC had a patent for a thermometer with a plastic cover held on by a hooking type mechanism. IVAC created a thermometer with a cover held on by a ring that created a friction lock. The CAFC held the IVAC invention was non-infringing on the AMEC patent because under the doctrine of equivalents, it did not perform the same function in the same way. The AMEC thermometer cover used an inscription fit, which created deep scratches in the cover. The IVAC thermometer used a friction fit, which only created superficial scratches in the cover. The CAFC found that the superficial scratches did not constitute an inscription fit. Also, the CAFC decided that AMEC did not present any evidence proving that the ring in the IVAC patent was equivalent to the “hook” in the AMEC patent. Because of this, the patent was non-infringing under the doctrine of equivalents.

901444263

*Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574 (1989)

The inventor, Turner, invented a thermometer probe cover that stays on (this was owned by AMEC). It kept the cover on via a sharp metal hook to tear into the cover’s plastic. IVAC developed a thermometer that served a similar purpose of keeping the probe cover on, except that it did so with a ring on the probe (to hold the cover via friction). IVAC intentionally left the probe free of any sharp edge to ease the removal of the probe cover when needed. District Court of Southern California ruled in summary judgment that IVAC’s thermometer probe covers do not infringe AMEC’s. On appeal from AMEC, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. A ring that does not tear the plastic cover is not equivalent to the hook that does. [http://campus.westlaw.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/result/default.wl?mt=CampusLaw&db=ALLCASES&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT4121840350313&origin=Search&sp=003654480-2000&method=TNC&cfid=1&rp=%2fwelcome%2fCampusLaw%2fdefault.wl&eq=welcome%2fCampusLaw&rltdb=CLID_DB1095239350313&srch=TRUE&query=TI(JOHNSTON+%26+IVAC)&vr=2.0&fmqv=s&action=Search&fn=_top&service=Search&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.01]

901471466

*Unitronics Ltd. v. Gharb, 318 Fed.Appx. 902 C.A.Fed. (Dist.Col.) (1989)

This case involved a patent for programmable logic controllers with Global System for Mobile communications. The main issue was infringement based on the capabilities of the programmable logic controllers (PLCs). The court held that alleged infringers PLCs did not contain a “digital recording device having at least one emergency message” or an equivalent. The alleged infringers PLCs also did not have the “data set for transmission to the mobile telephone including alarm information.” The court also ruled that they did not have anything equivalent to either of these claims. Based on the ruling in Warner-Jenkinson the device is not infringing unless it “contains each limitation of the claim, either literally or by an equivalent.” The alleged infringing PLCs did not have a similarity to all of the limitations to the claim and were thus allowed to continue selling their device. [[http://campus.westlaw.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/result/default.wl?mt=CampusLaw&db=ALLFEDS%2cALLSTATES%2cSCT&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT3654057332134&origin=Search&sp=003654480-2000&method=WIN&cfid=1&rp=%2fWelcome%2fCampusLaw%2fdefault.wl&eq=Welcome%2fCampusLaw&rltdb=CLID_DB3890056332134&srch=TRUE&query=unitronics+gharb&vr=2.0&fmqv=s&action=Search&fn=_top&service=Search&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.01]]

901479977

*Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates (1990)

Wilson is suing DGA/Dunlop for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of its patented design for a golf ball. Wilson's patent is for a golf ball modeled as an icosahedron with dimples placed in such a way as to have 6 "great circles" of symmetry instead of the typical 1. The patent specifies where dimples should be placed on the ball and requires that no dimples be placed on the great circles. The accused DGA balls use the same "great circles" design, but with dimples placed on the great circles. DGA's defense is that there is "no principled difference" between its design and a design of the prior art (prior to Wilson's patent). Therefore, allowing Wilson to utilize the doctrine of equivalents would extend protection of claims already in the prior art to Wilson's patent. The CAFC decided that Wilson can only utilize the doctrine of equivalents if it can make a hypothetical claim that literally covers Dunlop's design (in this case, claim a ball with dimples placed on the great circles) and is also nonobvious considering the prior art. Wilson is unable to make such a nonobvious hypothetical claim and therefore no infringement was found.

901338276

* Lemelson v. General Mills, Inc., 968 F.2d 1202 (1992)

Lemelson sued Mattel, alleging that Mattel's "Hot Wheels" toy car track infringed on his patented toy track. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found in favor of the plaintiff. Mattel appealed to the CAFC. The Court held that the "Hot Wheels" track did not contain all the limitations of the patent; it was equivalent to the prior art. That is, Lemelson's patent could not be both valid in light of the prior art and infringed upon by Mattel. Furthermore, upon his first application, claim 3 of Lemelson's patent had five clauses. The PTO examiner found the patent to be indistinguishable from the prior art. Lemelson added clauses [f] and [g] and received a patent. The important parts of the claim were, "[f] said guide means include a pair of spaced apart runner portions for defining the pathway of a vehicle moving over said track, [g] said spaced apart runner portions include upwardly extending rails for guiding the wheels of a vehicle." The Court held that "Hot wheels" did not contain any elements equivalent to the clauses [f] and [g]. The Court also noted that the public is entitled to the PTO record to determine the scope and meaning of claims.

901330223

*Valmont Industries Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Company Inc., 983 F.2d 1039 (1993)

901316153

This case concerns an adaption for center-pivot (i.e. rotating) irrigation systems. The adaption (an apparatus that attaches to the main frame of the sprinkler) allows the corners of a field, normally missed by the standard rotating irrigation system, to be watered. The infringement issue relates to the means by which the position of the sprinkler is detected, relative to the field. The patent uses a method of pivot angle encoders, while the "infringing" patent uses buried electromagnetic cables to guide the sprinkler around the field.

The CAFC ruled that the second device was not infringing, reversing the decision of the district court. The district court argued that the means of controlling the system were equivalent. The CAFC's argument was that while the two irrigation systems performed substantially the same overall function to obtain substantially the same overall result as the claimed invention, the way those results were achieved was substantially different. "Comparison of these two control means compels the conclusion that the claimed control means and Reinke's control means are not structurally equivalent.[...][E]ven though both the control means in the specification and the control means on Reinke's device use electric signals, the structures generating those signals are strikingly different."

Because the doctrine of equivalence requires that the two devices perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same results, the two control systems were not equivalent under the doctrine of equivalence because they did not meet the "way" requirement of the doctrine of equivalence.

*William Bradshaw and Robert Shepherd v. Igloo Products Corp. 1997 WL 543109 (US District Court, N.D.Ill.)

William Bradshaw sued Igloo Products for infringement of a wheeled cooler. Bradshaw’s patent was for a cooler with a pulling handle and two lifting handles, one of which was connected on the same axle as the pulling handle. The Igloo products in question were the Rolling Kool Locker which had a rotatable lifting hand that can also be used to pull the cooler and the Cool Roller which had separate lifting and pulling handles coupled to separate axles. The court decided that the prior art for the Cool Roller was a different patent, the Mason patent. This patent was for a wheeled cooler with separate lifting and pulling handles. The Mason patent was granted before Bradshaw’s patent. The court ruled that the Cool Roller fell under the Mason patent. Therefore, if Bradshaw’s patent were to be expanded to include the Cool Roller’s handles, it would be an invalid patent as a result of the prior art, the Mason patent. This leads to a method of deciding infringement. If the product in question mimics prior art, then it cannot infringe the patent otherwise that patent would be invalid. In deciding infringement for the Rolling Kool Locker, the court decided that it was up to a jury to decide whether the Kool Lockers handles were equivalent to Bradshaw’s patent, since there was no other glaring evidence.

Eric Paul

* Dr. Raymond G. Tronzo v. Biomet Inc. 1998 156 F.3d 1154 (United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit)
In this case Biomet was accused of infringement of an artificial hip prosthesis patented by Dr. Tronzo (patent 4,743,262). The alleged infringement revolved around the shape of the artificial hip socket and the hinge that was inserted into the socket. Patent ‘262 claimed a “generally conical” shape of the hip socket. Biomet’s design contained a strictly hemispherical shape. The court heard evidence in which it was claimed that even though the shapes would have at first glance performed in the same manner, the forces generated on the surface of each implant would be different depending on the shape. Additionally, after hearing expert testimony that suggested any shape would have been equivalent to the conical limitations of the patent claims, the court said that such a ruling would have been impermissible under the all-elements rule of Warner Jenkinson because it would write the “generally conical” shape limitation out of the claims. Therefore, the court held that the accused design did not infringe upon the patent claims under the doctrine of equivalence.

Peter Mitros (901461727)

*Hale Propeller, L.L.C. v Ryan Marine Products Pty., LTD., et al, 151 F. Supp .2d 183 (2001) Connecticut District Court
Ryan owned patent 4411073, issued on 25 October 1983, which concerned devices to measure the pitch of propeller blades. Ryan originally filed the claim on 13 July 1981 it was rejected and then ammended on 4 October 1982. Hale's device called the "Hale Propeller MRI" was developed in 1997. In question are claims 1(b),(c),(f), and 6. A third party, Michigan Wheel Corporation, a distributor of Hale's invention filed for patent invalidity. The important differences between Hale's and Ryan's device are that Hale's does not use gears or worm-drives to rotate the blade and the device does not give direct readouts of the measurements using electric circuits. The issue with claim 1(b) was if a roller was a necessary part of the structure because it prevents skipping of the probe making the measurements more accurate. The court used means-plus-function to rule that the roller was important and Hale did not infringe. The issue with claim 1(c) deals with whether a worm or gear drive is necessary to rotate the blade. Ryan's patent discloses a hand-cranked device, like Hales, but includes a worm-drive. Part of Ryan's ammendment to his claim was to include worm gear to the hand-cranking device and therefore the court used prosecution history estoppel to make their decision because Ryan forfeited that claim (hand-cranked device without worm-drive) in order to get the patent and therefore cannot use doctrine of equivalents to get the claim back. The issue of claim 1(f) was whether the computer in the claim was a special computer needed for the readouts. The court ruled that the claim was not that narrow, but then the court ruled that claim 6 dealt with a computer that receives measurement data from the optical encoder and therefore Hale did not infringe. The patent was also ruled valid using the roller and worm drive to prove that it was non-obvious §103, definitively disclosed §112, and not anticipated by prior art §102(b).

Gillian Allsup

901281608

*Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. Nos. 2010-1145, 2010-117. (2001) United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

This case began as an infringement lawsuit by Siemens Medical Solutions USA, inc. against Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics, Inc. for the alleged infringement of a patent held by Siemens for a scintillator, a part of an x-ray machine that detects radiation. Saint-Gobain owned a patent for a similar device and the circuit court found that this patent infringed on the patent held by Siemens, which was filed earlier. Though the doctrine of equivalents was used to rule infringement, Saint-Gobain was found to have accidentally, rather than willfully infringed and Siemens was awarded 52.3 million dollars.

Siemens filed for patent number 4,958,080 on August 4, 1989. This patent was for a scintillator containing cerium-doped- lutetium oxyorthosilicate. This is a component of a radiation detector that absorbs gamma-ray photons from an x-ray machine and converts them to visible light so the results can be interpreted. Saint-Gobain also produces scintillators, filing patent number 6,6424,420 in 2000 for a cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium orthosilicate. The chemical composition differs from that of the Siemens' patent as %10 of the lutetium is substituted for yttrium. These scintillators were sold by Saint-Gobain to Philips Medical Systems, a competitor of Siemens. The circuit court found that the composition of Saint-Gobain's scintillator preformed largely the same function in the same manner as Siemens' patent, and therefore was infringement under the doctrine of equivalence.

Saint-Gobain filed a motion for a new trail, on the basis that the jury was not told that infringement by the doctrine of equivalence must be proved by clear evidence and argued that damages should be remitted. The Federal Appeals Court did not grant Saint-Gobain a new trial, but did reduces the damages to 44 million.

*Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283 C.A.Fed. (Mich.), 2010
Adams Respiratory Therapeutics patented an extended release formulation of expectorant. The patent was for Mucinex and was new in that it allowed the expectorant (an aspect to medicine which promotes the discharge of phlegm or other fluid from the respiratory tract). Adams brought suit, alleging that generic manufacturer's (Perrigo's) proposed production and marketing of generic version of the product would infringe its patent. The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Gordon J. Quist, J., 2010 WL 565195, granted defendant summary judgment of non-infringement. Plaintiff appealed. Within the patent Adams specified an amount of expectorant in the drug using the words "at least." The court found that "at least" did not prevent the use of the doctrine of equivalents and that the doctrine may apply to patents with specific number ranges. Adams patent stated that it would have at least 3500 hr*ng/mL, while Perrigo was using 3494.38 hr*ng/mL (only a 0.189% difference). Adams argued that this number was not substantially different and thus should represent infringement. Perrigo argued that because the claim does not use words of approximation, Adams cannot expand this element to ensnare Perrigo's product. The court found that the fact that the claim does not contain words of approximation does not affect the analysis-“terms like ‘approximately’ serve only to expand the scope of literal infringement, not to enable application of the doctrine of equivalents.” The proper inquiry is whether the accused value is insubstantially different from the claimed value. Because the court found that there was not a substantial difference between the numbers the doctrine of equivalents applied, the order of the district court was vacated and the case was remanded.

Snooki

*Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Homedics, Inc., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 5230892 (2010)

This case involved a patent for a force-transmitting bearing used with a platform scale. Sunbeam held a patent which specified bearings which were attached to the platform via loose tabs which allowed the bearings to move horizontally. The patent claims required the base of the bearing to be oriented parallel to the platform and remain parallel to the platform at all times. The structure of the accused device was such that the bearings were connection to the platforms using dimples on the lower surface of the platform which the bearings fit into. Sunbeam had criticized prior art which used a similar dimple connection during prosecution beacuse of the potential for unwanted force moments applied by the bearing. The CAFC upheld the District Court's finding of no infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents because bearings which rocked and pivoted, as the accused device did, did not fall within the reach of the patent claims because they did not remain parallel to the platform at all times.

901422128

*Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 264 F.3d 1326 (2001)
Kustom Signals held a patent for a multimode traffic radar system which will show either the fastest speed or the strongest signal. Three of the claims used the word "or" in their wording. Kustom claimed that the "or" was a logical operator meaning one, the other, or both. Applied Concepts had designed a radar system which returned both the fastest speed and the strongest signal. The Court held that the word "or" was to hold its traditional, customary meaning as being exclusive, not inclusive, of the two statements.

901 41 7852

*Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc., 126 F. 3d 1420 (1997)

Sage Products sued Devon Industries for infringement of several patents relating to containers for disposing of hazardous medical waste (needles etc.). Devon counter-sued for infringement of one of its similar patents. The district court held (on summary judgment) that there was no infringement by either party literally or equivalently. The appellate court affirmed.

Devon’s first alleged infringement was of Sage’s container claiming an elongated slot "at the top" of the apparatus for which to deposit waste, and a "barrier over the slot" to prevent contamination. Devon's patent involved a type of elongated slot that was embedded within the container and a hinged element at the opening. The court ruled no literal infringement because the Devon patent did not include the "at the top" and "over" features of the Sage claim. Even though the devices perform the same function the court ruled no equivalent infringement because the hinged element did not "substantially constrict access" to the container, and the slot was not "substantially at the top" of the container. The court was adamant that equivalent function could not negate the “at the top” and “over” limitations of the patent, stating that such power would reduce patent claims to "functional abstracts" devoid of meaningful structure limitations for the public to reference. A second infringement involved in this case resulted in the court ruling that if patent claims specify a function and recite its importance the patentee cannot later accuse an invention devoid of the specified function of infringement.

901419437

*Siemens Medical Solutions USA, INC. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics., F.3d, 2011 WL 651790 (2011)

Siemens developed, manufactured, and sold PET scanners which made use of scintillator crystals consisting of cerium-doped lutetium oxyorthosilicate (LSO). Saint-Gobain manufactures and sells scintillator crystals for use in PET scanners which consisted of cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium orthosilicate (LYSO). This is chemically different from LSO in that some of the lutetium is substituted for by yttrium. In Saint-Gobain's crystals, 10% of the lutetium atoms are substituted for by yttrium atoms (crystals are 10% Y LYSO). In April of 2007, Siemens sued Saint-Gobain for infringement of claims 1 and 2 of Siemens '080 patent for LSO scintillator crystals and photodetectors. Saint-Gobain aregued that its LYSO crystals are not equivalent to those claimed in the '080 patent because their crystals are separately claimed by their '420 patent. A jury trial found Saint-Gobain infringing upon the claims held by Siemens. Saint-Gobains appeals, and claims that the district court erred in jury instructions, claiming that in cases where an alleged equivalent is separately patented, a higher burden of evidence is required. Their reasoning was that the jury's finding of infringement effectively invalidated their '420 patent for LYSO crystals as the ruling of equivalence implied a conclusion of obviousness. The Court of Appeals disagrees, stating that it is well established that separate patentability does not avoid equivalency as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals also disagrees that the jury's finding of infringement invalidates the '420 patent; it only finds the level of LYSO used in practice (10%) is equivalent to Siemen's LSO crystals. Other compositions of LYSO could well be non-equivalent. Using the function-way-result test which asks whether an element of the an accused product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way, the Court of Appeals affirms the juries finding of infringement.

Erich Wolz

*Sunbeam Products Inc. v. Homedics Products Inc. , US Court of Appeals, District Court of Wisconsin (2010)
This case involved a clear example of non-equivalence relating to the doctrine of equivalence. The patent holder Sunbeam Products brought action against competitor Homedics, alleging infringement of its patent for force-transmitting bearings for a platform scale. This case was decided under the district court of Wisconsin. Sunbeam Products had created platform bearings which translated purely horizontally along a platform which transferred all platform loads into purely vertical loads supported by the bearings. A previous patent, ‘326 patent, encompassed bearings which rocked and pivoted. HoMedics's accused scales all include bearings similar to the bearing disclosed in the ′326 patent. Each of the HoMedics bearings is machined with a nose-like protrusion that fits into a corresponding dimple on the underside of the platform. The trial court noted that the accused bearings all rock and pivot within their corresponding dimples in the underside of the platform. Sunbeam did not dispute that the HoMedics bearings rock and pivot in that manner. Sunbeam's argument was that in addition to rocking and pivoting, the HoMedics bearings were capable of some horizontal movement and therefore infringe the ′420 patent.
In light of its claim construction and the undisputed evidence regarding the operation of the bearings in the accused HoMedics products, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. The court determined that no reasonable juror could find that bearings that rock and pivot remain parallel to the underside of the platform; accordingly, it held that the pivoting bearings in all of the accused products do not literally infringe the ′420 patent.

The most important distinction that was made in this case was the following statement. “The doctrine of equivalents is not a license to rewrite the claims to encompass what a patentee believes to be an equivalent structure. That is especially true in a case such as this one, where the accused product is not later-developed technology that is insubstantially different from the claimed invention, but instead embodies disavowed prior art. Thus, the district court correctly held that the accused bearings do not infringe the ′420 patent under the doctrine of equivalents.”

Christine Roetzel - 901425022

*Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U.S. 717 F.2d 1351

NASA and Department of Defense, were trying to build a satellite that would orbit the earth. However, they were unable to do so they had problems with the attitude control. Williams, a man who was working for Hughes Co. was able to figure out the problem. He was able to have lab model on 4/2/60 and it was called "dynamic wheel." Williams presented it to NASA and then Hughes Co and NASA entered an agreement to build the satellite. Williams filed for a patent on 4/18/60 and that became known as "Williams patent."
However, the govt started to build these spacecrafts that used the same systems from the satellite and did not give compensation to Williams. It went to court and the govt said that Williams patent was invalid because it infringed McLean's telescope. Williams rewrote his claims and stated “McLean's infrared telescope does not indicate the instantaneous spin angle position of his body with reference to a fixed external coordinate system, and it does not indicate the orientation of the axis with reference to a fixed external coordinate system." The court found Williams patent valid.
Then, the court looked at the spacecraft and compared it to Williams satellite. They found the following similarites: "(1) each is spin-stabilized; (2) each contains a jet on the periphery, connected by a valve to a tank containing fluid for expulsion substantially parallel to the spin axis; (3) each employs sun sensors to sense ISA position; (4) each requires knowledge of orientation relative to a fixed external coordinate system; (5) each contains radio equipment for communicating with the ground; (6) each transmits spin rate and sun angle information to a ground crew; and (7) in each, jet firing is synchronized with ISA position to effect controlled precession and thus to achieve a desired orientation."
Needless to say the court ruled that govt infringed Williams patent.

901439143

* Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc. 126 F.3d. 1420 (1997)

In this case, Sage Products sued Devon Industries for infringement of two of its patents and Devon countersued Sage for infringement of one of its own patents, all of which relate to the disposal of medical waste products such as needles. In trial and on appeal, the courts held that there was no literal infringement nor infringement by the doctrine of equivalents by any party. Sage claimed that Devon's '251 for a "tortuous path" disposal container infringed on both its '728 patent for a sharps disposal container and its '849 patent for the removal and storage of syringe needles. Devon claimed that Sage's '728 patent infringed on its '592 patent for a disposal container.
** The '728 patent consists of an opening with a curved arc extending above it and another below it (inside the container) with a rotatable L-shaped flap such that waste can be deposited without exposing it again.
** The '849 patent covers a container with notches for removing needles and a "moveable closure" that allows the container to be closed and reopened as needed.
** The '251 patent covers a disposal container with a slotted opening at the top and 2 overlapping but displaced obstructions within the container to prevent accessing material that has been disposed of. It also has a closure that permanently locks once closed.
** The 592 patent covers a container that has a slotted opening and another "baffle" within the container that has another slotted opening horizontally displaced from the first
The courts held that the '251 patent did not infringe on the '728 patent because the patent explicitly described a precise configuration of an opening at the "top of the container" with one obstruction "over said slot" and another below, and that '251 configuration was different. They also held that the '251 patent did not infringe on the '849 patent because there was an important difference between permanent closure and closure that can be reopened. Finally, the '728 patent did not infringe on the '592 patents for similar reasons as the first: the configurations were very different. The '592 patent emphasized a horizontal displacement, which was not part of the '728 patent. The courts held that the use of precise language in patents limited the claims and because disposal containers were reasonably simple and straightforward, different configurations could not be equated.

Julia Potter (jpotter2)

* Kudlacek v. DBC, Inc. 115 F. Supp. 2d 996 (2000)

Owner of Patent No. 5,611,325 for an archery bow stabilizer, Donald Kudlacek, brought an infringement suit against competitor DBC, Inc. DBC counterclaimed, stating that its patent for a peep sight targeting system was being infringed. The claim in question was a "threading" limitation on the stabilizer describing how it is adjusted and secured. The District Court decided that neither Kudlacek's stabilizer nor DBC's peep sight target system were infringed. This was because the accused device, the "Super Stix," was found to not be equivalent to the patented device because it did not infringe all the elements of claim 1. Though the accused device performs, basically, the same function, it does so in a substantially different way; therefore the Doctrine of Equivalents does not apply. Note that the invalidity issue was not settled by finding that the patent was not infringed.

901437068

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)

Adkins v. Lear discussed the assembly and sale of a certain type of gyroscope. The gyroscope design had originally been borrowed by Lear, from Adkins under the terms that Lear would pay a small percentage of their profits to Adkins since Lear was not the original inventor of the gyroscope mechanical design. Conflicts arose when Lear refused to pay Adkins under the claim that their new gyroscope was a unique design that differed from the original design contracted from Adkins. The judges determined that since the new design was similar to the original in all the necessary inner working components and only differed in the external aesthetic features, the new design infringed on the old since it did not provide any new or useful feature. Based on this judgment Lear was required to pay Adkins for any sales of the new gyroscope.

901438174

* Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)

I hate to be repetitive, but I read the same case. I will reiterate, it is a case about a dispute over profit sharing. Adkins invented the gyroscope and required Lear to share profits if he used the design. The dispute arose when Lear made an improvement upon the designed and refused to pay profits on this "new and improved" design. This design was really just the innards reworked into a new shape without altering the size or scale. This was ruled to be equivalent to the original design, reinforcing the underlying ideas of the doctrine of equivalents.

cmadiga1

Lemelson v. Mattel (1992), (968 F.2d 1202)

Lemelson sued Mattel, saying that their hotwheels toys infringed on his patent for a flexible track for toy cars. In the original case, Hotwheels was ruled to have infringed on Lemelson's patent. The history of the patents in the toy race car tracks was important in this case. Before Lemelson received his patent, Giardiol had a patent for a flexible car track with an internal support. Mattel's track was very similar in all aspects of the Giardiol patent, but did not have an internal frame. Lemelson's patent was originally denied as being completely anticipated by Giardiol. However by adding claims to the vertical supports which define the track and keep the car on the track Lemelson was able to distinguish his product and obtain a patent. Therefore, these were ruled as the defining characteristics of Lemelson's patent. In the original case, the jury found that Hotwheels product did not contain these characteristics. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the previous ruling saying that the jury had made a logical error.

Andy Stulc

Riester: "clear" case

2011-03-29T21:30:16Z

Kriester: Created page with "Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Murphy 97 U.S. 120, 1877 WL 18651 U.S.,1877 Basically a case about machines that make cuts in paper that prepare it to be made into a paper bag. Bo..."

Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Murphy
97 U.S. 120, 1877 WL 18651
U.S.,1877

Basically a case about machines that make cuts in paper that prepare it to be made into a paper bag. Both parties have a patent for said type of machine but it turns out that the respondents machine is almost exactly the same as the petitioner, they just call it something different. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

here it is on WestLaw [http://campus.westlaw.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/find/default.wl?serialnum=1877197141&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.01&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=CampusLaw&vr=2.0&pbc=1F85251F&spa=003654480-2000&ordoc=291K237]

User:Kriester

2011-03-29T21:26:35Z

Kriester:

= My Selected US Patent =
* Patent 4836046
** Issued June 6, 1989
* The idea behind this invention was to automate gear shifting in bicycles, a vehicle in which gear shifting is traditionally a manual process, by means of "A sprocket wheel assembly which is responsive to the input torque applied at the pedals." I found this interesting because to me, bicycle transmissions represent a purely mechanical device, but I've always been interested in the idea of automating this. I think it will be relevant to this study of patent law because surely, others have had similar ideas about inventing automatic bicycle transmissions. I found the patent while searching the "Patentstorm" website; here is the link: [http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4836046/fulltext.html].
----

[[Riester: 1/28/11 Homework]]

[[Riester: 2/4/11 Homework]]

[[Riester: Nonobviousness]]

[[Riester: W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540 (1983)]]

[[Riester: 3/23/11 Homework]]

[[Riester:CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 288 F.3d 1359 (2002)]]

[[Riester:Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. 339 US 605 (1950)]]

[[Riester: "clear" case]]

Riester:Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. 339 US 605 (1950)

2011-03-25T00:50:26Z

Kriester:

Supreme Court of the United States GRAVER TANK & MFG. CO., Inc., et al. v. LINDE AIR PRODUCTS CO.

No. 2. Reargued March 30, 1950. Decided May 29, 1950. Motion to Issue Mandate Denied June 5, 1950.

* The Linde Air Products Company brought action for patent infringement against Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company and others

*A judgment holding certain claims of plaintiff's patent invalid and holding other claims valid and infringed was entered by the United States District Court, Northern Division of Indiana and upon appeal the portion of the judgment holding certain claims invalid was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the defendants brought certiorari.

*The judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it reversed that of the District Court was reversed and judgment of the District Court was reinstated by the Supreme Court

*thereafter a rehearing was granted limited to the question of infringement of the four valid flux claims 18, 20, 22 and 23 in plaintiff's patent No. 2,043,960, relating to electric welding. The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Jackson, held that finding that the four flux claims of plaintiff's patent were infringed by defendants' device under doctrine of equivalents was not clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

* basically, patents must protect against insubstantial changes, otherwise theyre worthless. It is also inconceivable to outline or detail every possible manifestation or variation in a patented design. Thus this kinda of duplication must constitute patent infringement.

*The doctrine of equivalents evolved in response to this experience. The essence of the doctrine is that one may not practice a fraud on a patent. Originating almost a century ago in the case of Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 330, 14 L.Ed. 717, it has been consistently applied by this Court and the lower federal courts, and continues today ready and available for utilization when the proper circumstances for its application arise. ‘To temper unsparing logic and prevent an infringer from stealing the benefit of the invention'[1] a patentee may invoke this doctrine to proceed against the producer of a device ‘if it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result.

*"What constitutes equivalency must be determined against the context of the patent, the prior art, and the particular circumstances of the case"

*A finding of equivalence is a determination of fact. Proof can be made in any form: through testimony of experts or others versed in the technology; by documents, including texts and treatises; and, of course, by the disclosures of the prior art.

*"In the case before us, we have two electric welding compositions or fluxes: the patented composition, Unionmelt Grade 20, and the accused composition, Lincolnweld 660. The patent under which Unionmelt is made claims essentially a combination of alkaline earth metal silicate and calcium fluoride; Unionmelt actually contains, however, silicates of calcium and magnesium, two alkaline earth metal silicates. "

DISSENT

Claims arent specific enough. Congress said something or other limiting patent monopoly to what is specifically outlined in the claim.

Notes
*The dissent here doesn't make much sense. The judge is too hung up on the letter of the law and is not understaning the spirit of patent law.

Riester:Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. 339 US 605 (1950)

2011-03-25T00:25:32Z

Kriester: Created page with "Supreme Court of the United States GRAVER TANK & MFG. CO., Inc., et al. v. LINDE AIR PRODUCTS CO. No. 2. Reargued March 30, 1950. Decided May 29, 1950. Motion to Issue Mandate ..."

User:Kriester

2011-03-25T00:23:50Z

Kriester:

Riester:CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 288 F.3d 1359 (2002)

2011-03-25T00:23:11Z

Kriester:

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

CCS FITNESS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BRUNSWICK CORPORATION and its Division Life Fitness, Defendants Appellees.

*Plaintiff-Appellant CCS Fitness, Inc. appeals from a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado holding that the claim limitation “reciprocating member” as used in the asserted patents does not cover anything more than the single-component straight bar depicted in the patents' drawings. As a result, the district court concluded, the accused infringer Life Fitness warranted summary judgment of non-infringement, since its accused exercise machines' “pedal lever” uses a multi-component, curved bar.

*i.e. CCS sued Brunswick for infringement but the District Court of Colorado warranted a summary judgement of non-infringement because the "reciprocating member" part of the claim only covers the single component straight bar depicted in patent drawings whereas Brunswick used a multiple-component, curved bar. CCS appealed to USCA.

*Court of appeals reversed because the term 'member' has an established meaning the patent does explicitly say it has to be straight and so the use of a curved, multi component member does in fact infringe.

*Reversed - infringement!

*Patent deals with an elliptical.

*"Besides the description set forth above, nothing in the claim language of the three patents describes the shape of the reciprocating members or whether it consists of a single-component structure only, as opposed to a structure consisting of multiple components."

*important language: preferred embodiments of the design, which kinda lends itself to less specificity

*Both parties moved for summary judgment, with CCS Fitness arguing that the reciprocating members contained in each of the claims at issue comprised more than simply a single-component, straight bar-they also included the curved, multi-component structure used in the accused devices. The parties agreed that “reciprocating” referred to the “back and forth” movement of the “member”; but the district court disagreed with CCS Fitness' proposed construction of “member,” reasoning that the claim language never alluded to the reciprocating members as having multiple parts. Further, said the district court, the “illustrations in the three patents-in-suit show a reciprocating member ... made of one contiguous piece of hard material, with no connections or joints.”

*As to the shape of the reciprocating members, the court noted that nothing in the claims, specifications or prosecution history indicates what shape these structures had to take; but again, it reasoned that the “figures [of the claimed invention] illustrate a straight bar.”

*the district court concluded that it did not literally infringe CCS Fitness' ′962 or ′567 patents as a matter of law

*This seems to be the salient point: Brunswick's manifestation of the design differed by only a different shaped and broken up member, but that wasn't specified under the CCS patent so it's still encompassed within the CCS patent and thus infringes.

*Does this mean it's better to be less precise sometimes?

*Life Fitness counters that (among other things) the specification and the drawings can limit the scope of the claimed reciprocating members, since “member” is a vague term whose scope requires clarification from the specification and drawings. To support this argument, Life Fitness points to an affidavit from an expert who avers that “member” has no customary meaning to one of ordinary skill, thereby necessitating resort to the specification.

*CCS Fitness appeals, arguing again that the ordinary meaning of the term “reciprocating member”-whether defined by an ordinary or a technical dictionary-covers a curved structure consisting of one or more components
an affidavit from the inventor who asserts that “member” has a broad, ordinary meaning in the relevant art.

*Life Fitness suggests that the claimed “member” is so lacking in structure that it essentially constitutes a means-plus-function clause, see 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6

* 35 U.S.C. section 112 paragraph 6:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

i.e. you can specify a means with out specifying material or structure but then you have to claims those somewhere ( i think?)

Generally speaking, we indulge a “heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.

[I]f an apparatus claim recites a general structure without limiting that structure to a specific subset of structures, we will generally construe the term to cover all known types of that structure” that the patent disclosure supports.

Judges can use dictionaries to understand patents (haha)

Indeed, contrary to the district court's analysis here, our case law makes clear that a patentee need not “describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”

*Applying these principles, we hold that the claim term “reciprocating member,” as used in the asserted patents, encompasses the multi-component, curved structure used by the accused exercise machines.

Riester:CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 288 F.3d 1359 (2002)

2011-03-25T00:05:00Z

Kriester:

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

CCS FITNESS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BRUNSWICK CORPORATION and its Division Life Fitness, Defendants Appellees.

*Plaintiff-Appellant CCS Fitness, Inc. appeals from a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado holding that the claim limitation “reciprocating member” as used in the asserted patents does not cover anything more than the single-component straight bar depicted in the patents' drawings. As a result, the district court concluded, the accused infringer Life Fitness warranted summary judgment of non-infringement, since its accused exercise machines' “pedal lever” uses a multi-component, curved bar.

*i.e. CCS sued Brunswick for infringement but the District Court of Colorado warranted a summary judgement of non-infringement because the "reciprocating member" part of the claim only covers the single component straight bar depicted in patent drawings whereas Brunswick used a multiple-component, curved bar. CCS appealed to USCA.

*Court of appeals reversed because the term 'member' has an established meaning the patent does explicitly say it has to be straight and so the use of a curved, multi component member does in fact infringe.

*Reversed - infringement!

*Patent deals with an elliptical.

*"Besides the description set forth above, nothing in the claim language of the three patents describes the shape of the reciprocating members or whether it consists of a single-component structure only, as opposed to a structure consisting of multiple components."

*important language: preferred embodiments of the design, which kinda lends itself to less specificity

*Both parties moved for summary judgment, with CCS Fitness arguing that the reciprocating members contained in each of the claims at issue comprised more than simply a single-component, straight bar-they also included the curved, multi-component structure used in the accused devices. The parties agreed that “reciprocating” referred to the “back and forth” movement of the “member”; but the district court disagreed with CCS Fitness' proposed construction of “member,” reasoning that the claim language never alluded to the reciprocating members as having multiple parts. Further, said the district court, the “illustrations in the three patents-in-suit show a reciprocating member ... made of one contiguous piece of hard material, with no connections or joints.”

*As to the shape of the reciprocating members, the court noted that nothing in the claims, specifications or prosecution history indicates what shape these structures had to take; but again, it reasoned that the “figures [of the claimed invention] illustrate a straight bar.”

*the district court concluded that it did not literally infringe CCS Fitness' ′962 or ′567 patents as a matter of law

*Life Fitness counters that (among other things) the specification and the drawings can limit the scope of the claimed reciprocating members, since “member” is a vague term whose scope requires clarification from the specification and drawings. To support this argument, Life Fitness points to an affidavit from an expert who avers that “member” has no customary meaning to one of ordinary skill, thereby necessitating resort to the specification.

*CCS Fitness appeals, arguing again that the ordinary meaning of the term “reciprocating member”-whether defined by an ordinary or a technical dictionary-covers a curved structure consisting of one or more components
an affidavit from the inventor who asserts that “member” has a broad, ordinary meaning in the relevant art.

*

*This seems to be the salient point: Brunswick's manifestation of the design differed by only a different shaped and broken up member, but that wasn't specified under the CCS patent so it's still encompassed within the CCS patent and thus infringes.

*Does this mean it's better to be less precise sometimes?

Riester:CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 288 F.3d 1359 (2002)

2011-03-24T23:55:38Z

Kriester:

Riester:CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 288 F.3d 1359 (2002)

2011-03-24T23:53:48Z

Kriester:

Riester:CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 288 F.3d 1359 (2002)

2011-03-24T23:52:12Z

Kriester:

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

CCS FITNESS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BRUNSWICK CORPORATION and its Division Life Fitness, Defendants Appellees.

Plaintiff-Appellant CCS Fitness, Inc. appeals from a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado holding that the claim limitation “reciprocating member” as used in the asserted patents does not cover anything more than the single-component straight bar depicted in the patents' drawings. As a result, the district court concluded, the accused infringer Life Fitness warranted summary judgment of non-infringement, since its accused exercise machines' “pedal lever” uses a multi-component, curved bar.

i.e. CCS sued Brunswick for infringement but the District Court of Colorado warranted a summary judgement of non-infringement because the "reciprocating member" part of the claim only covers the single component straight bar depicted in patent drawings whereas Brunswick used a multiple-component, curved bar. CCS appealed to USCA.

Court of appeals reversed because the term 'member' has an established meaning the patent does explicitly say it has to be straight and so the use of a curved, multi component member does in fact infringe.

Reversed - infringement!

Patent deals with an elliptical.

"Besides the description set forth above, nothing in the claim language of the three patents describes the shape of the reciprocating members or whether it consists of a single-component structure only, as opposed to a structure consisting of multiple components."

Riester:CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 288 F.3d 1359 (2002)

2011-03-24T23:51:57Z

Kriester:

Riester:CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 288 F.3d 1359 (2002)

2011-03-24T23:44:43Z

Kriester:

Riester:CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 288 F.3d 1359 (2002)

2011-03-24T23:41:01Z

Kriester: Created page with "CCS FITNESS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION and its Division Life Fitness, Defendants Appellees."

CCS FITNESS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BRUNSWICK CORPORATION and its Division Life Fitness, Defendants Appellees.

User:Kriester

2011-03-24T23:40:30Z

Kriester:

Riester: 3/23/11 Homework

2011-03-23T15:19:25Z

Kriester:

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
BROS INCORPORATED, Appellant,
v.
BROWNING MANUFACTURING CO. and Shovel Supply Co., Inc., Appellees.

No. 17169.

May 27, 1963.

Bottom Line: Appeal of a ruling by a district court that held that a patent was invalid because it had been described in a pamphlet that published more than one year prior to the date of application of the patent. The US Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, saying that the pamphlet had "sufficient particularity to enable one skilled in art of constructing patented article to reproduce the invention without having resort to the patent." Thus, again holding this patent to be invalid as per 35 USCA section 102(b).

More specifically it deals with a patent dealt to BROS inc. for a Pneumatic Roller Compactor on an application filed November 17, 1949. This patent had only obvious differences from a design outlining an invention called ‘50 Ton Compactor With Oscillating Wheels,’ which had been publicly distributed from July 16, through July 24, 1948, 16 months prior to the date of application. The invention was fully described and illustrated in the packet.

Why this makes sense: Despite the fact that the invention described in the pamphlet mentioned seemingly had not been patented, the details had already been disclosed to the public. Thus the public stands nothing to gain from a patent with only obvious differences from the ones printed and thus the applicant in this case is seeking economical monopoly for little to no cost, relatively speaking.

Riester: 3/23/11 Homework

2011-03-23T15:06:31Z

Kriester:

Riester: 3/23/11 Homework

2011-03-23T15:05:10Z

Kriester:

Riester: 3/23/11 Homework

2011-03-23T15:00:12Z

Kriester: Created page with "United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit. BROS INCORPORATED, Appellant, v. BROWNING MANUFACTURING CO. and Shovel Supply Co., Inc., Appellees. No. 17169. May 27, 1963."

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
BROS INCORPORATED, Appellant,
v.
BROWNING MANUFACTURING CO. and Shovel Supply Co., Inc., Appellees.

No. 17169.

May 27, 1963.

User:Kriester

2011-03-23T14:59:55Z

Kriester:

User:Kriester

2011-03-07T04:46:32Z

Kriester:

ESB Briefs

2011-03-04T07:34:09Z

Kriester:

Here is a list of briefs for the Electric Storage Battery Co v. Shimadzu case. Add your name next to the list for the one with the fewest names and read that one.
* Reply Brief for Respondents. (Feb. 27, 1939)
#Michael Madden
#Hwong1
#croetzel
#kroshak
#Adam Mahood
#Michael Ackroyd
#Sam Karch
#Kyle Tennant
#Steve Bonomo
#Kurt Riester
#
* Reply Brief for Petitioner. (Feb. 7, 1939)
#Cmadiga1
#90144463
#901422128
#jpotter2
#ewolz
#E W Hitchler
#Davin Sakamoto
#Kevin Godshall
#901479977
#
* Brief for Respondents (Jan. 28, 1939)
#LMiller
#Josh Bradley
#Brobins
#Ebingle
#kyergler
#BCastel1
#Eric Leis
#Eddie Guilbeau
#Andrew McBride
#
* Brief for Petitioner. (Jan. 1939)
#Kschlax
#Andy Stulc
#Mzahm
#Rabot
#Peter Mitros
#Jacob Marmolejo
#Greg Torrisi
#Kevin Dacey
#Fernando Rodriguez
#

Bilski brief list

2011-02-14T05:15:04Z

Kriester:

Choose one of the briefs from this list. Delete it and replace it with your login name. Please be careful editing this page. If you mess up all the formatting it will create work for your colleagues.

#Reply Brief for Petitioners (Oct. 26, 2009)
#jpotter2
#Adam T. Letcher
#Craigkrzyskowski
#dcarter2
#ebingle
#Rabot
#Eric Paul
#cnorton
#Brief For Amicus Curiae Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Respondent (Oct. 2, 2009)
#Jnosal
#Brief of Amici Curiae Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, IP Justice, and Four Global Software Professionals and Business Leaders in Support of Respondent (Oct. 2, 2009)
#Brief for Free Software Foundation as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent (Oct. 2, 2009)
#eguilbea
#901444263
#Brief of Entrepreneurial and Consumer Advocates Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent (Oct. 2, 2009)
#Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of the Respondent, Submitted on Behalf of Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Tethys Bioscience, Inc. (Oct. 2, 2009)
#KyleR
#Andy Stulc
#Brief for Amicus Curiae Mark Landesmann in Support of Affirmance (Oct. 2, 2009)
#Amicus Curiae Brief of Center for Advanced Study and Research in Intellectual Property (CASRIP) of the University of Washington School of Law, and of CASRIP Research Affiliate Scholars, in Support of Affirmance of the Judgment in Favor of Respondent (Oct. 1, 2009)
#Kevin Godshall
#Amici Curiae Brief of Internet Retailers in Support of Respondent (Oct. 1, 2009)
#Brief for the Respondent (Sep. 25, 2009)
#Kriester
#Brobins
#Josh Bradley
#Brief of Amici Curiae Entrepreneurial Software Companies in Support of Petitioner (Aug. 6, 2009)
#E W Hitchler
#Brief of Amicus Curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 6, 2009)
#Brief of Amici Curiae Biotechnology Industry Organization, Advanced Medical Technology Association, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation & The Regents of the University of California in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 6, 2009)
#Mzahm
#Brief of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 6, 2009)
#Hamburgler
#Brief of F%21ed%21eration Internationale Des Conseils En Propri%21et%21e Industrielle as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 6, 2009)
#Brief of Amicus Curiae Law Professor Kevin Emerson Collins in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 6, 2009)
#Brief of Amicus Curiae Legal OnRamp in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 6, 2009)
#Brief of Amicus Curiae John Sutton in Support of Petitioners (Aug. 6, 2009)
#Brief of Amicus Curiae Novartis Corporation Supporting Petitioners (Aug. 6, 2009)
#Brief Amicus Curiae of The Federal Circuit Bar Association in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 6, 2009)
#Brief of Regulatory Datacorp, Inc, American Express Company, Palm Inc., Rockwell Automation, Inc., and SAP America, Inc. as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 6, 2009)
#Brief of Double Rock Corporation, Island Intellectual Property LLC, LIDs Capital LLC, Intrasweep LLC, Access Control Advantage, Inc., Ecomp Consultants, Pipeline Trading Systems LLC, Rearden Capital Corporation, Craig Mowry and PCT Capital LLC as Ami ci Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Aug. 6, 2009)
#901422128
#Brief of Amicus Curiae The Houston Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Petitioners (Aug. 6, 2009)
#Brief of Franklin Pierce Law Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Aug. 6, 2009)
#LMiller
#Brief of TELES AG as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 6, 2009)
#Brief of Amicus Curiae San Diego Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Neither Party on the Merits (Aug. 6, 2009)
#Brief of Robert R. Sachs and Daniel R. Brownstone as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 6, 2009)
#CRoetzel
#Brief of Amicus Curiae AwakenIP, LLC in Support of Petitioners (Aug. 6, 2009)
#Pmitros
#Brief of Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Aug. 6, 2009)
#901479977
#Brief for Prometheus Laboratories Inc. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 5, 2009)
#Brief of Amicus Curiae Intellectual Property Owners Association in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 5, 2009)
#Brief of Amicus Curiae Boston Patent Law Association in Support of Petitioners (Aug. 5, 2009)
#Brief for the Business Software Alliance as Amicus Curiae in Support of Affirmance (Aug. 5, 2009)
#Brief of Amicus Curiae Washington State Patent Law Association in Support of Petitioner (Aug. 5, 2009)
#Bobby Powers
#Brief of Amici Curiae Association Internationale Pour la Protection de la Propriete Intellectuelle and International Association For The Protection Of Intellectual Property (U.S.) in Support of Reversal (Aug. 5, 2009)
#Brief of Amicus Curiae Caris Diagnostics, Inc. in Support of Petitioners (Aug. 5, 2009)
#Brief of the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago as Amicus Curiae Supporting Neither Party (Aug. 5, 2009)
#Brief of Monogram Biosciences, Inc. and Genomic Health, Inc. as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 5, 2009)
#Brief of Amicus Curiae Raymond C. Meiers in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 5, 2009)
#Xiao Dong
#Brief of Amicus Curiae Conejo Valley Bar Association in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 3, 2009)
#Brief For Petitioners (Jul. 30, 2009)
#Brief of Amicus Curiae Telecommunication Systems, Inc. in Support of Neither Party and for Purely Prospective Application of Any Adoption of the New Legal Test Applied Below (Jul. 24, 2009)
#Brief for the State of Oregon as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party (Jul. 24, 2009)
#ewolz
#kristen kemnetz
#Brief for the Respondent in Opposition (May 1, 2009)
#Brief of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Mar. 2, 2009)
#Brief of Amicus Curiae Boston Patent Law Association in Support of Petitioners (Mar. 2, 2009)
#Brief of Accenture and Pitney Bowes Inc. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Mar. 2, 2009)
#Brief Amicus Curiae of Franklin Pierce Law Center in Support of Certiorari (Mar. 2, 2009)
#Brief of Amica Curiae Anne E. Barschall, Pro Se in Support of Petitioners (Mar. 2, 2009)
#Brief of Amicus Curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Mar. 2, 2009)
#Jmarmole
#Brief of John P. Sutton Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners (Feb. 25, 2009)

Riester: Nonobviousness

2011-02-11T16:31:51Z

Kriester: /* Secondary Considerations */

==Historical Development==
The following are some cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard.

===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)===

Prior to [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of ''nonobviousness''.

:...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.

:The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.

:But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.

:Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.

:But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.

:The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.

It can be seen in this pronouncement of the court opinion by Justice Nelson, that the original requirement of novelty is not satisfactory, as the knob designed by Hotchkiss is a new product. Although the term "nonobviousness" will not be developed for some time, the court's decision hinges on the fact that the mere substitution of better suited materials is too obvious a development to warrant a patent. The fundamental premise of nonobviousness is presented a few paragraphs later, as Justice Nelson states,

:"....unless more ingenuity and skill in applying the old method of fastening the shank and the knob were required in the application of it to the clay or porcelain knob than ''were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business'', there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingeunity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the skillful mechanic, not that of the inventor."

Thus, it is made clear that an invention must not only be novel, but must require a level of ingenuity that exceeds that of an individual with ordinary skill in the related field.

===A&P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)===

While it pre-dates the language of section 103, [[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]] discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention. In particular, this case dealt with three significant issues related to the process of determining patentability:

*First, that the "level of invention" was partly evidenced by "long felt but unsatisfied need" which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.

The importance of a "long felt but unsatisfied need" in the determination of nonobviousness is that it is difficult to claim that an invention is obvious if there has been a demand for a certain product and no one has been able to fulfill that need. However, it is important to note that there are two requirements that must be met here. There must be a need for the product and the need must have existed for a long time. If the need is relatively new, then it is difficult to claim that a person with ordinary skill in the field would have not developed such a design had he been aware of demand for such a device. On the other hand, if the market related to a certain field has provided no sign that there is a need for such an improvement, then it can be argued that the design would have been obvious had anyone expressed interest in the proposed device.

*Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.

In Graham v. John Deere, the history of the patent process is discussed, particularly Thomas Jefferson's outlook on the purpose of providing a patent. Jefferson made it clear that patents were only to be granted for inventions that furthered human knowledge and were new and useful. The granting of patents for small details, obvious improvements, or frivolous devices was neither worthwhile nor helpful. In A&P v. Supermarket Corp., Jefferson's sentiment is echoed, except the focus of the court is narrowed further to the important frontier of science and engineering. As Justice Douglas states, "the purpose is to promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts," and the two disciplines most associated with progress at that time (and still currently) are science and engineering. Even later, the court states, "patents serve a higher end-the advancement of science," which make this point very clear.

*Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.

The court's outlook on the evaluation of patents in regard to the combination of prior elements is best summarized in the following explanation. "The mere aggregation of a number of old parts or elements which, in the aggregation, peform or produce no new or different function or operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them is not patentable invention....only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts is the accumulation of old devices patentable."

===35 USC 103 (1952)===
This section of the code was adopted in 1952 and prohibits a patent in a case where
:the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.

===Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (1955)===

In [[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]] Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:
:Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been "obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art" — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4

===Graham v. John Deere (1966)===

In [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of "inventiveness" to the statutory language of "nonobviousness." The criteria to determine nonobviousness include
* scope and content of the prior art;
* differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
* level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,
* secondary considerations, including:
** commercial success of the invention;
** long-felt but unsolved needs;
** failure of others to find a solution, etc.

===U.S. v. Adams (1966)===

* 1966: [[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]] All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.

===Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)===
Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in [[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]] by returning the focus to "inventiveness" by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.

==Suggestion to Combine==
[[In Re Rouffet]] deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.

:"When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references."
:"[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.

==Objective Tests==
Two important considerations were the focus of [[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375]].
*A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.
*The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they ''must'' be considered by the court.
*This case also considers the concept of ''enablement'' which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.

==The Inventive Step==

==Relationship with Novelty==
==Nonobviousness vs. Invention==
==Secondary Considerations==
:Secondary considerations are critical to an understanding of Nonobviousness. According to U.S. code, the necessary requirement for nonobviousness is that "The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." While this is certainly an important criterion to consider, it is, though perhaps intentionally and necessarily, ambiguous and subjective. How does one discern whether or not subject matter would have been "obvious?" That surely is the question. Certainly, it is of some value to have experts in a field testify that an idea in fact was or was not obvious to those with ordinary skill in their art, but that alone seems pretty unsatisfactory. Indeed, there should be, and are some secondary considerations that are slightly more concrete tests of what can be deemed "obvious," although none of them alone are necessary conditions.

:An important consideration of, and perhaps even a sufficient condition for nonobviousness is the questions of whether or not the "invention" in question satisfied any long felt industry need. If say, a clear need for a particular device has arisen, and yet for many years, no solution is created, it would seem certain that any invention that solved this problem is in fact nonobvious. Although the general idea behind the solution may be obvious by those generally skilled in the art, clearly a means to implement the solution is anything but clear and obvious. The reason for this is that surely, if there is some sort of viable need for a product, a solution will be sought until it is found. The person who then finds the solution before anyone else and after the failures of others has clearly created something nonobvious. An excellent example of this is the case of Lyon v. Bausch % Lomb 224 F.2d 530 (1955)....To be continued.....

==Ordinary Skill in the Art==

[[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]

[[Reiner v. I. Leon Co.]]

[[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]

[[South Corp. v. US]]

Riester: Nonobviousness

2011-02-11T16:24:41Z

Kriester: /* Secondary Considerations */

==Historical Development==
The following are some cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard.

===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)===

Prior to [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of ''nonobviousness''.

:...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.

:The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.

:But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.

:Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.

:But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.

:The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.

It can be seen in this pronouncement of the court opinion by Justice Nelson, that the original requirement of novelty is not satisfactory, as the knob designed by Hotchkiss is a new product. Although the term "nonobviousness" will not be developed for some time, the court's decision hinges on the fact that the mere substitution of better suited materials is too obvious a development to warrant a patent. The fundamental premise of nonobviousness is presented a few paragraphs later, as Justice Nelson states,

:"....unless more ingenuity and skill in applying the old method of fastening the shank and the knob were required in the application of it to the clay or porcelain knob than ''were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business'', there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingeunity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the skillful mechanic, not that of the inventor."

Thus, it is made clear that an invention must not only be novel, but must require a level of ingenuity that exceeds that of an individual with ordinary skill in the related field.

===A&P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)===

While it pre-dates the language of section 103, [[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]] discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention. In particular, this case dealt with three significant issues related to the process of determining patentability:

*First, that the "level of invention" was partly evidenced by "long felt but unsatisfied need" which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.

The importance of a "long felt but unsatisfied need" in the determination of nonobviousness is that it is difficult to claim that an invention is obvious if there has been a demand for a certain product and no one has been able to fulfill that need. However, it is important to note that there are two requirements that must be met here. There must be a need for the product and the need must have existed for a long time. If the need is relatively new, then it is difficult to claim that a person with ordinary skill in the field would have not developed such a design had he been aware of demand for such a device. On the other hand, if the market related to a certain field has provided no sign that there is a need for such an improvement, then it can be argued that the design would have been obvious had anyone expressed interest in the proposed device.

*Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.

In Graham v. John Deere, the history of the patent process is discussed, particularly Thomas Jefferson's outlook on the purpose of providing a patent. Jefferson made it clear that patents were only to be granted for inventions that furthered human knowledge and were new and useful. The granting of patents for small details, obvious improvements, or frivolous devices was neither worthwhile nor helpful. In A&P v. Supermarket Corp., Jefferson's sentiment is echoed, except the focus of the court is narrowed further to the important frontier of science and engineering. As Justice Douglas states, "the purpose is to promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts," and the two disciplines most associated with progress at that time (and still currently) are science and engineering. Even later, the court states, "patents serve a higher end-the advancement of science," which make this point very clear.

*Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.

The court's outlook on the evaluation of patents in regard to the combination of prior elements is best summarized in the following explanation. "The mere aggregation of a number of old parts or elements which, in the aggregation, peform or produce no new or different function or operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them is not patentable invention....only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts is the accumulation of old devices patentable."

===35 USC 103 (1952)===
This section of the code was adopted in 1952 and prohibits a patent in a case where
:the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.

===Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (1955)===

In [[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]] Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:
:Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been "obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art" — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4

===Graham v. John Deere (1966)===

In [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of "inventiveness" to the statutory language of "nonobviousness." The criteria to determine nonobviousness include
* scope and content of the prior art;
* differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
* level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,
* secondary considerations, including:
** commercial success of the invention;
** long-felt but unsolved needs;
** failure of others to find a solution, etc.

===U.S. v. Adams (1966)===

* 1966: [[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]] All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.

===Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)===
Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in [[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]] by returning the focus to "inventiveness" by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.

==Suggestion to Combine==
[[In Re Rouffet]] deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.

:"When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references."
:"[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.

==Objective Tests==
Two important considerations were the focus of [[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375]].
*A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.
*The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they ''must'' be considered by the court.
*This case also considers the concept of ''enablement'' which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.

==The Inventive Step==

==Relationship with Novelty==
==Nonobviousness vs. Invention==
==Secondary Considerations==
:Secondary considerations are critical to an understanding of Nonobviousness. According to U.S. code, the necessary requirement for nonobviousness is that "The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." While this is certainly an important criterion to consider, it is, though perhaps intentionally and necessarily, ambiguous and subjective. How does one discern whether or not subject matter would have been "obvious?" That surely is the question. Certainly, it is of some value to have experts in a field testify that an idea in fact was or was not obvious to those with ordinary skill in their art, but that alone seems pretty unsatisfactory. Indeed, there should be, and are some secondary considerations that are slightly more concrete tests of what can be deemed "obvious," although none of them alone are necessary conditions.

:Perhaps

==Ordinary Skill in the Art==

[[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]

[[Reiner v. I. Leon Co.]]

[[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]

[[South Corp. v. US]]

Riester: Nonobviousness

2011-02-11T16:19:13Z

Kriester: /* Secondary Considerations */

==Historical Development==
The following are some cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard.

===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)===

Prior to [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of ''nonobviousness''.

:...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.

:The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.

:But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.

:Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.

:But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.

:The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.

It can be seen in this pronouncement of the court opinion by Justice Nelson, that the original requirement of novelty is not satisfactory, as the knob designed by Hotchkiss is a new product. Although the term "nonobviousness" will not be developed for some time, the court's decision hinges on the fact that the mere substitution of better suited materials is too obvious a development to warrant a patent. The fundamental premise of nonobviousness is presented a few paragraphs later, as Justice Nelson states,

:"....unless more ingenuity and skill in applying the old method of fastening the shank and the knob were required in the application of it to the clay or porcelain knob than ''were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business'', there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingeunity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the skillful mechanic, not that of the inventor."

Thus, it is made clear that an invention must not only be novel, but must require a level of ingenuity that exceeds that of an individual with ordinary skill in the related field.

===A&P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)===

While it pre-dates the language of section 103, [[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]] discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention. In particular, this case dealt with three significant issues related to the process of determining patentability:

*First, that the "level of invention" was partly evidenced by "long felt but unsatisfied need" which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.

The importance of a "long felt but unsatisfied need" in the determination of nonobviousness is that it is difficult to claim that an invention is obvious if there has been a demand for a certain product and no one has been able to fulfill that need. However, it is important to note that there are two requirements that must be met here. There must be a need for the product and the need must have existed for a long time. If the need is relatively new, then it is difficult to claim that a person with ordinary skill in the field would have not developed such a design had he been aware of demand for such a device. On the other hand, if the market related to a certain field has provided no sign that there is a need for such an improvement, then it can be argued that the design would have been obvious had anyone expressed interest in the proposed device.

*Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.

In Graham v. John Deere, the history of the patent process is discussed, particularly Thomas Jefferson's outlook on the purpose of providing a patent. Jefferson made it clear that patents were only to be granted for inventions that furthered human knowledge and were new and useful. The granting of patents for small details, obvious improvements, or frivolous devices was neither worthwhile nor helpful. In A&P v. Supermarket Corp., Jefferson's sentiment is echoed, except the focus of the court is narrowed further to the important frontier of science and engineering. As Justice Douglas states, "the purpose is to promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts," and the two disciplines most associated with progress at that time (and still currently) are science and engineering. Even later, the court states, "patents serve a higher end-the advancement of science," which make this point very clear.

*Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.

The court's outlook on the evaluation of patents in regard to the combination of prior elements is best summarized in the following explanation. "The mere aggregation of a number of old parts or elements which, in the aggregation, peform or produce no new or different function or operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them is not patentable invention....only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts is the accumulation of old devices patentable."

===35 USC 103 (1952)===
This section of the code was adopted in 1952 and prohibits a patent in a case where
:the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.

===Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (1955)===

In [[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]] Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:
:Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been "obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art" — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4

===Graham v. John Deere (1966)===

In [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of "inventiveness" to the statutory language of "nonobviousness." The criteria to determine nonobviousness include
* scope and content of the prior art;
* differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
* level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,
* secondary considerations, including:
** commercial success of the invention;
** long-felt but unsolved needs;
** failure of others to find a solution, etc.

===U.S. v. Adams (1966)===

* 1966: [[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]] All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.

===Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)===
Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in [[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]] by returning the focus to "inventiveness" by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.

==Suggestion to Combine==
[[In Re Rouffet]] deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.

:"When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references."
:"[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.

==Objective Tests==
Two important considerations were the focus of [[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375]].
*A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.
*The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they ''must'' be considered by the court.
*This case also considers the concept of ''enablement'' which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.

==The Inventive Step==

==Relationship with Novelty==
==Nonobviousness vs. Invention==
==Secondary Considerations==
Secondary considerations are critical to an understanding of Nonobviousness. According to U.S. code, the necessary requirement for nonobviousness is that "The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." While this is certainly an important criterion to consider, it is, though perhaps intentionally and necessarily, ambiguous and subjective. How does one discern whether or not subject matter would have been "obvious?" That surely is the question. Certainly, it is of some value to have experts in a field testify that an idea in fact was or was not obvious to those with ordinary skill in their art, but that alone seems pretty unsatisfactory. Indeed, there should be, and are some secondary considerations that are slightly more concrete tests of what can be deemed "obvious," although none of them alone are necessary conditions.

==Ordinary Skill in the Art==

[[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]

[[Reiner v. I. Leon Co.]]

[[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]

[[South Corp. v. US]]

Riester: Nonobviousness

2011-02-11T15:06:47Z

Kriester: Created page with "==Historical Development== The following are some cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard. ===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (185..."

==Historical Development==
The following are some cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard.

===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)===

Prior to [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of ''nonobviousness''.

:...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.

:The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.

:But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.

:Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.

:But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.

:The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.

It can be seen in this pronouncement of the court opinion by Justice Nelson, that the original requirement of novelty is not satisfactory, as the knob designed by Hotchkiss is a new product. Although the term "nonobviousness" will not be developed for some time, the court's decision hinges on the fact that the mere substitution of better suited materials is too obvious a development to warrant a patent. The fundamental premise of nonobviousness is presented a few paragraphs later, as Justice Nelson states,

:"....unless more ingenuity and skill in applying the old method of fastening the shank and the knob were required in the application of it to the clay or porcelain knob than ''were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business'', there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingeunity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the skillful mechanic, not that of the inventor."

Thus, it is made clear that an invention must not only be novel, but must require a level of ingenuity that exceeds that of an individual with ordinary skill in the related field.

===A&P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)===

While it pre-dates the language of section 103, [[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]] discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention. In particular, this case dealt with three significant issues related to the process of determining patentability:

*First, that the "level of invention" was partly evidenced by "long felt but unsatisfied need" which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.

The importance of a "long felt but unsatisfied need" in the determination of nonobviousness is that it is difficult to claim that an invention is obvious if there has been a demand for a certain product and no one has been able to fulfill that need. However, it is important to note that there are two requirements that must be met here. There must be a need for the product and the need must have existed for a long time. If the need is relatively new, then it is difficult to claim that a person with ordinary skill in the field would have not developed such a design had he been aware of demand for such a device. On the other hand, if the market related to a certain field has provided no sign that there is a need for such an improvement, then it can be argued that the design would have been obvious had anyone expressed interest in the proposed device.

*Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.

In Graham v. John Deere, the history of the patent process is discussed, particularly Thomas Jefferson's outlook on the purpose of providing a patent. Jefferson made it clear that patents were only to be granted for inventions that furthered human knowledge and were new and useful. The granting of patents for small details, obvious improvements, or frivolous devices was neither worthwhile nor helpful. In A&P v. Supermarket Corp., Jefferson's sentiment is echoed, except the focus of the court is narrowed further to the important frontier of science and engineering. As Justice Douglas states, "the purpose is to promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts," and the two disciplines most associated with progress at that time (and still currently) are science and engineering. Even later, the court states, "patents serve a higher end-the advancement of science," which make this point very clear.

*Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.

The court's outlook on the evaluation of patents in regard to the combination of prior elements is best summarized in the following explanation. "The mere aggregation of a number of old parts or elements which, in the aggregation, peform or produce no new or different function or operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them is not patentable invention....only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts is the accumulation of old devices patentable."

===35 USC 103 (1952)===
This section of the code was adopted in 1952 and prohibits a patent in a case where
:the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.

===Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (1955)===

In [[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]] Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:
:Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been "obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art" — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4

===Graham v. John Deere (1966)===

In [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of "inventiveness" to the statutory language of "nonobviousness." The criteria to determine nonobviousness include
* scope and content of the prior art;
* differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
* level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,
* secondary considerations, including:
** commercial success of the invention;
** long-felt but unsolved needs;
** failure of others to find a solution, etc.

===U.S. v. Adams (1966)===

* 1966: [[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]] All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.

===Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)===
Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in [[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]] by returning the focus to "inventiveness" by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.

==Suggestion to Combine==
[[In Re Rouffet]] deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.

:"When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references."
:"[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.

==Objective Tests==
Two important considerations were the focus of [[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375]].
*A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.
*The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they ''must'' be considered by the court.
*This case also considers the concept of ''enablement'' which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.

==The Inventive Step==

==Relationship with Novelty==
==Nonobviousness vs. Invention==
==Secondary Considerations==
==Ordinary Skill in the Art==

[[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]

[[Reiner v. I. Leon Co.]]

[[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]

[[South Corp. v. US]]

User:Kriester

2011-02-11T15:06:32Z

Kriester:

Riester: 2/4/11 Homework

2011-02-07T14:33:17Z

Kriester:

== The Case for the Nonobviousness of Graham '798 ==
Plowing fields has been integral to the farming done by humans for nearly as long as they have farmed, and certainly, nearly as long as they have plowed, they have encountered rocky fields. Naturally, older plows were static structures that were inflexible upon contact with some rock or other obstacle. As such, many plows doubtlessly broke or were ruined for this reason. Thus it can be argued, because humans have been plowing for so long, and encountering these problems, any improvement in this field can hardly be considered obvious. Surely, this has been a problem people have sought to deal with the centuries without any reliable notion of how to do it. This is the greatest argument for the nonobviousness of Graham's '798 patent. As it has been said "Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances [383 U.S. 1, 18] surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy." As in the case of Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co 224 F.2d, 530, althought dubbed "secondary considerations" these can sometimes be a sufficient test for nonobviousness. Although changes in the '798 patent may seem minimal, the new design greatly steadies the shank, as well as reduces much of the wear in the previous design. Both these features and key to the robustness of any design. Although the invention is a combination of previously known elements, it is hardly a trivial one.

== The Case for the Obviousness of Graham '798 ==
Graham's '798 patent is a trivial combination of previously known elements that required no ingenuity or skill beyond that of an ordinary worker in the art at the time of the invention and is thus "obvious." Furthermore, the distinguishing characteristic of the new patent, the supposed "free flexing" ability was an afterthough mentioned only in trial and not in the original patent document, proving that it was not in the mind of the designer at the time of the invention. This goes to show it did not drive the design and was merely a lucky result. The benefits of the new design above the old one are similarly trivial and do not warrant a separate patent.

==== References ====
Graham '798: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=2MVtAAAAEBAJ&dq=2,627,798] 
Graham '811: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=0BZqAAAAEBAJ&dq=2,493,811] 
Pfeifer '451: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=rkVKAAAAEBAJ&dq=2014451]

Riester: 2/4/11 Homework

2011-02-07T14:21:15Z

Kriester:

== The Case for the Nonobviousness of Graham '798 ==
Plowing fields has been integral to the farming done by humans for nearly as long as they have farmed, and certainly, nearly as long as they have plowed, they have encountered rocky fields. Naturally, older plows were static structures that were inflexible upon contact with some rock or other obstacle. As such, many plows doubtlessly broke or were ruined for this reason. Thus it can be argued, because humans have been plowing for so long, and encountering these problems, any improvement in this field can hardly be considered obvious. Surely, this has been a problem people have sought to deal with the centuries without any reliable notion of how to do it. This is the greatest argument for the nonobviousness of Graham's '798 patent. As it has been said "Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances [383 U.S. 1, 18] surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy." As in the case of Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co 224 F.2d, 530, althought dubbed "secondary considerations" these can sometimes be a sufficient test for nonobviousness. Although changes in the '798 patent may seem minimal, the new design greatly steadies the shank, as well as reduces much of the wear in the previous design. Both these features and key to the robustness of any design. Although the invention is a combination of previously known elements, it is hardly a trivial one.

== The Case for the Obviousness of Graham '798 ==
merely a combo of previously known elements. the one supposed benefit wasnt even mentioned in the patent application. it is an obvious idea to someone of ordinary skill in the arts.
, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
free flex theory was an afterthought. not vital to the invention.

==== References ====
Graham '798: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=2MVtAAAAEBAJ&dq=2,627,798] 
Graham '811: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=0BZqAAAAEBAJ&dq=2,493,811] 
Pfeifer '451: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=rkVKAAAAEBAJ&dq=2014451]

Riester: 2/4/11 Homework

2011-02-07T08:47:01Z

Kriester:

== The Case for the Nonobviousness of Graham '798 ==

== The Case for the Obviousness of Graham '798 ==

==== References ====
Graham '798: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=2MVtAAAAEBAJ&dq=2,627,798] 
Graham '811: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=0BZqAAAAEBAJ&dq=2,493,811] 
Pfeifer '451: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=rkVKAAAAEBAJ&dq=2014451]

Riester: 2/4/11 Homework

2011-02-07T08:45:52Z

Kriester: /* The Case for the Nonobviousness of Graham */

== The Case for the Nonobviousness of Graham '798 ==

== The Case for the Obviousness of Graham ==

==== References ====
Graham '798: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=2MVtAAAAEBAJ&dq=2,627,798]
Graham '811: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=0BZqAAAAEBAJ&dq=2,493,811]
Pfeifer '451: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=rkVKAAAAEBAJ&dq=2014451]

Riester: 2/4/11 Homework

2011-02-07T08:44:35Z

Kriester:

== The Case for the Nonobviousness of Graham ==

== The Case for the Obviousness of Graham ==

==== References ====
Graham '798: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=2MVtAAAAEBAJ&dq=2,627,798]
Graham '811: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=0BZqAAAAEBAJ&dq=2,493,811]
Pfeifer '451: [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=rkVKAAAAEBAJ&dq=2014451]

Riester: 2/4/11 Homework

2011-02-07T08:39:10Z

Kriester: Created page with "== The Case for the Nonobviousness of Graham == == The Case for the Obviousness of Graham== ==== Reference ===="

== The Case for the Nonobviousness of Graham ==

== The Case for the Obviousness of Graham==

==== Reference ====

User:Kriester

2011-02-07T08:37:18Z

Kriester:

User:Kriester

2011-02-07T08:36:50Z

Kriester:

= My Selected US Patent =
* Patent 4836046
** Issued June 6, 1989
* The idea behind this invention was to automate gear shifting in bicycles, a vehicle in which gear shifting is traditionally a manual process, by means of "A sprocket wheel assembly which is responsive to the input torque applied at the pedals." I found this interesting because to me, bicycle transmissions represent a purely mechanical device, but I've always been interested in the idea of automating this. I think it will be relevant to this study of patent law because surely, others have had similar ideas about inventing automatic bicycle transmissions. I found the patent while searching the "Patentstorm" website; here is the link: [http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4836046/fulltext.html].
----

==Homework 1 1/28/11==
[[Riester: 1/28/11 Homework]]

[[Riester: 2/4/11 Homework]]

User:Kriester

2011-01-31T07:25:33Z

Kriester:

= My Selected US Patent =
* Patent 4836046
** Issued June 6, 1989
* The idea behind this invention was to automate gear shifting in bicycles, a vehicle in which gear shifting is traditionally a manual process, by means of "A sprocket wheel assembly which is responsive to the input torque applied at the pedals." I found this interesting because to me, bicycle transmissions represent a purely mechanical device, but I've always been interested in the idea of automating this. I think it will be relevant to this study of patent law because surely, others have had similar ideas about inventing automatic bicycle transmissions. I found the patent while searching the "Patentstorm" website; here is the link: [http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4836046/fulltext.html].
----

==Homework 1 1/28/11==
[[Riester: 1/28/11 Homework]]

Riester: Reference Description

2011-01-31T07:24:51Z

Kriester: moved Riester: Reference Description to Riester: 1/28/11 Homework

#REDIRECT [[Riester: 1/28/11 Homework]]

Riester: 1/28/11 Homework

2011-01-31T07:24:51Z

Kriester: moved Riester: Reference Description to Riester: 1/28/11 Homework

Two patents referenced in my patent are No. 3,995,508 [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=CyU4AAAAEBAJ&dq=3995508] and No. 3,969,948 [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=YkQ6AAAAEBAJ&dq=3969948].

Similarly to my chosen patent, the two referenced patents deal with varying the sprocket size of a bicycle transmission based solely on the input torque, using some combination of springs and dampers in order to automatically shift gears. They all were issued within 15 years, with mine being the most recent. Judging by the lack of automatic transmission bicycles on the market today, despite the “obviousness” of the idea, it would seem as if none of the patented designs ever achieved much commercial success.

Considering these similarities, it is difficult to believe that my patent would have been valid under the analysis of Hotchkiss. Hotchkiss deals with a case of a patent that describes only a difference in material to consider itself an invention. While my patent does more than simply substitute a material from one of these prior patents, it cannot really be said that it required more skill “than was possessed by and ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business” Hotchkiss vs. Greenwood, 52 U.S 11. Indeed many had attempted to invent some kind of automatic bicycle transmission prior to this (though their success is also debatable), and thus the inventiveness of the idea is necessarily diminished.

Contrastingly, the patent may have held under the analysis of A&P, a case in which the main question seems to be: is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? Combination patents are often under scrutiny and this is simply another criterion they must achieve. The court claimed that devices combined into a patentable invention must “perform any additional or different function in the combination than they perform out of it.” A. & P. Tea Co. vs. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147. Now, regardless of the success of the invention of my patent, I think it would hold that the device does in fact do more than its individual parts could do separately. The springs and dampeners do in fact perform their normal duties, but to a different end. It is not the trivial combinations of functions.

However, my patent may not have stood under the other main idea of A. & P., i.e. “The function of a patent is to add to the sum of useful knowledge.” The spirit of a patent is to reward the inventor with limited financial monopoly over his invention, but simultaneously increasing knowledge in that art by disclosing the details of the invention so that more can be learnt from it and subsequent developments can build on prior ones. I would argue that this patent does little if anything to add to the sum of useful knowledge in the field of bicycle transmissions.

The main canon behind Lyon is that any patent which solves an industrial issue for which a solution has long been sought but none discovered is indeed valid and not “obvious.” ”It supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field.” Lyon v. Bausch and Lomb, 224 F.2d 530. This includes people having a similar idea but failing to successfully implement it, and subsequently abandoning said idea. Under this standard, my patent would most likely hold valid if, hypothetically, it was to achieve commercial success, and then someone was to infringe upon the patent. In that case, it would be the only automatic bicycle transmission to substantially occupy the field and thus, be “non-obvious.” However it is unlikely this will ever be an issue.
These cases nicely outline the progression of the standards of non-obviousness as I have discussed. However, criteria do seem to be less strict than in the past. In general, I would think that is because of the complexity of many of today’s inventions. It would be difficult to invent something that truly advanced science and satisfied some sort of commercial need if it did not combine at least some elements of previously known sciences. Thus the question must be is the combination an inventive or merely trivial one?

Riester: 1/28/11 Homework

2011-01-31T07:23:43Z

Kriester:

Riester: 1/28/11 Homework

2011-01-31T07:22:14Z

Kriester:

Two patents referenced in my patent are No. 3,995,508 [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=CyU4AAAAEBAJ&dq=3995508] and No. 3,969,948 [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=YkQ6AAAAEBAJ&dq=3969948].

Similarly to my chosen patent, the two referenced patents deal with varying the sprocket size of a bicycle transmission based solely on the input torque, using some combination of springs and dampers in order to automatically shift gears. They all were issued within 15 years, with mine being the most recent. Judging by the lack of automatic transmission bicycles on the market today, despite the “obviousness” of the idea, it would seem as if none of the patented designs ever achieved much commercial success.
Considering these similarities, it is difficult to believe that my patent would have been valid under the analysis of Hotchkiss. Hotchkiss deals with a case of a patent that describes only a difference in material to consider itself an invention. While my patent does more than simply substitute a material from one of these prior patents, it cannot really be said that it required more skill “than was possessed by and ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business” Hotchkiss vs. Greenwood, 52 U.S 11. Indeed many had attempted to invent some kind of automatic bicycle transmission prior to this (though their success is also debatable), and thus the inventiveness of the idea is necessarily diminished.
Contrastingly, the patent may have held under the analysis of A&P, a case in which the main question seems to be: is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? Combination patents are often under scrutiny and this is simply another criterion they must achieve. The court claimed that devices combined into a patentable invention must “perform any additional or different function in the combination than they perform out of it.” A. & P. Tea Co. vs. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147. Now, regardless of the success of the invention of my patent, I think it would hold that the device does in fact do more than its individual parts could do separately. The springs and dampeners do in fact perform their normal duties, but to a different end. It is not the trivial combinations of functions.
However, my patent may not have stood under the other main idea of A. & P., i.e. “The function of a patent is to add to the sum of useful knowledge.” The spirit of a patent is to reward the inventor with limited financial monopoly over his invention, but simultaneously increasing knowledge in that art by disclosing the details of the invention so that more can be learnt from it and subsequent developments can build on prior ones. I would argue that this patent does little if anything to add to the sum of useful knowledge in the field of bicycle transmissions.
The main canon behind Lyon is that any patent which solves an industrial issue for which a solution has long been sought but none discovered is indeed valid and not “obvious.” ”It supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field.” Lyon v. Bausch and Lomb, 224 F.2d 530. This includes people having a similar idea but failing to successfully implement it, and subsequently abandoning said idea. Under this standard, my patent would most likely hold valid if, hypothetically, it was to achieve commercial success, and then someone was to infringe upon the patent. In that case, it would be the only automatic bicycle transmission to substantially occupy the field and thus, be “non-obvious.” However it is unlikely this will ever be an issue.
These cases nicely outline the progression of the standards of non-obviousness as I have discussed. However, criteria do seem to be less strict than in the past. In general, I would think that is because of the complexity of many of today’s inventions. It would be difficult to invent something that truly advanced science and satisfied some sort of commercial need if it did not combine at least some elements of previously known sciences. Thus the question must be is the combination an inventive or merely trivial one?

Reference Description

2011-01-28T22:08:35Z

Kriester: moved Reference Description to Riester: Reference Description

#REDIRECT [[Riester: Reference Description]]

Riester: 1/28/11 Homework

2011-01-28T22:08:35Z

Kriester: moved Reference Description to Riester: Reference Description