Case 31: TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co. (2001)

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 10:02, 11 April 2011 by Kyle Tennant (talk | contribs) (Created page with "TurboCare holds a patent for a shaft sealing system for fluid turbines. The District Court held one claim invalid and that GE did not infringe on the design. The CAFC upheld the ...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

TurboCare holds a patent for a shaft sealing system for fluid turbines. The District Court held one claim invalid and that GE did not infringe on the design. The CAFC upheld the invalidation, affirmed and vacated parts of the infringement ruling, and remanded the case for further consideration, especially into the validation of other claims in light of its discussion. In prosecution, TurboCare amended one of its claims, and the District Court held the new claim invalid as new matter, not a modification of the old matter. The wording of the claims is not broad enough to cover all possible ways of achieving their functions, thus, the doctrine of equivalents does not apply.