Homework 26: Case on Doctrine of Equivalence: Difference between revisions
Created page with "=='''Valmont Industries Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Company Inc. (1993)'''== '''(983 F.2d 1039)'''" |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=='''Valmont Industries Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Company Inc. (1993)'''== | =='''Valmont Industries Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Company Inc. (1993)'''== | ||
'''(983 F.2d 1039)''' | '''(983 F.2d 1039)''' | ||
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 the **same function with the same results**, the means by which those results were achieved was substantially different. | |||
Revision as of 12:54, 31 March 2011
Valmont Industries Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Company Inc. (1993)
(983 F.2d 1039)
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 the **same function with the same results**, the means by which those results were achieved was substantially different.
