Difference between revisions of "EB: TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111 (2001)"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
*TurboCare has a patent for a "shaft sealing system for fluid turbines," sues GE for infringement
 
*TurboCare has a patent for a "shaft sealing system for fluid turbines," sues GE for infringement
 
**At high loads, a spring is compressed and a seal is made at small clearance position, but when the load is small (not in operation) the spring depresses and the device shifts to a large clearance position, eliminating any rubbing damage problem
 
**At high loads, a spring is compressed and a seal is made at small clearance position, but when the load is small (not in operation) the spring depresses and the device shifts to a large clearance position, eliminating any rubbing damage problem
 +
 +
*District court granted summary judgement of noninfringement of the claims 1, 5, 6, and 7. They also ruled claim 2 invalid for failing to meet written description criteria.
 +
*Appellate court affirms invalidity of claim 2, but remands decisions regarding infringement of other claims. They also ruled that 2 of the 4 allegedly infringing devices were not infringing, but that the others could be infringing based on doctrine of equivalents (remanded in regards to those devices)
  
 
==Issue==
 
==Issue==
Line 12: Line 15:
 
**Thus, claim 2 was rejected based on failing to meet requirements of Section 112.  
 
**Thus, claim 2 was rejected based on failing to meet requirements of Section 112.  
 
**Note: patent was written in vague terms so as to avoid conflict with Warth prior art patent.
 
**Note: patent was written in vague terms so as to avoid conflict with Warth prior art patent.
 +
 +
*Claim 2 - type of spring AND location of those springs
 +
**Disclosure says spring are at the end of the segment only (originally the claims had said adjacent to)
 +
**When claims were altered they eliminated position details - TurboCare argues that placement would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art (obvious placement is at #17)
 +
 +
==Concept: Means, Function Claim Language==
 +
*Section 112 - you can express claims "as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material or acts in support thereof.."
 +
**These claims will be construed "to cover the corresponding structure, material or acts described in the specification and the equivalents thereof"

Latest revision as of 12:29, 15 April 2011

Situation

  • TurboCare has a patent for a "shaft sealing system for fluid turbines," sues GE for infringement
    • At high loads, a spring is compressed and a seal is made at small clearance position, but when the load is small (not in operation) the spring depresses and the device shifts to a large clearance position, eliminating any rubbing damage problem
  • District court granted summary judgement of noninfringement of the claims 1, 5, 6, and 7. They also ruled claim 2 invalid for failing to meet written description criteria.
  • Appellate court affirms invalidity of claim 2, but remands decisions regarding infringement of other claims. They also ruled that 2 of the 4 allegedly infringing devices were not infringing, but that the others could be infringing based on doctrine of equivalents (remanded in regards to those devices)

Issue

  • TurboCare originally claimed "flat, s-shaped springs" but stated that "a considerable variety of springs can be employed" - he amends this during prosecution to say that "flat springs and others can be employed," because GE's machines used flat springs.
    • Is this new matter, or simply a clarification of original claims?
    • Appellate court says that there is an "issue of fact" as to whether new matter was added - so they remand back to the trial court
  • Next issue of case is "between" v. "adjacent to" location of the spring
    • Patent was "lacking in any description of an embodiment in which the spring is located between the casing shoulders" - his disclose of "spring located...adjacent to said springs" is way to vague to constitute sufficient disclosure.
    • Thus, claim 2 was rejected based on failing to meet requirements of Section 112.
    • Note: patent was written in vague terms so as to avoid conflict with Warth prior art patent.
  • Claim 2 - type of spring AND location of those springs
    • Disclosure says spring are at the end of the segment only (originally the claims had said adjacent to)
    • When claims were altered they eliminated position details - TurboCare argues that placement would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art (obvious placement is at #17)

Concept: Means, Function Claim Language

  • Section 112 - you can express claims "as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material or acts in support thereof.."
    • These claims will be construed "to cover the corresponding structure, material or acts described in the specification and the equivalents thereof"