Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC.
The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to capture unclaimed subject matter disclosed in the specification.
Results for doctrine of equivalents
view Case Detail
Download PDF
Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc.
Separate patentability of allegedly infringing equivalent of an invention of a patent in suit does not require patentee to prove infringement under doctrine of equivalents by clear and convincing evidence, but rather by a preponderance of evidence.
Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC.
While the doctrine of claim vitiation imposes a boundary around the subject matter expanded by the doctrine of equivalents, this boundary is not based on identifying a “binary” choice in which an element is either present or not present.
Funai Electric Co. v. Daewoo Electronic Corp.
A successor corporation is liable as a successor in interest for judgments against a U.S. predecessor.
Voda v. Cordis Corp.
In a case in which the alleged infringer modified their product prior to issuance of the patent in suit to avoid literal infringement, the Federal Circuit affirms a district court finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Felix v. American Honda
A narrowing amendment to a claim, even if the amendment does not place the claim in condition for allowance, may result in prosecution history estoppel barring assertion of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (Festo VIII)
Regarding prosecution history estoppel, the Supreme Court establishes a presumption that a narrowing amendment made for a reason related to patentability surrenders the entire territory between the original and amended claim limitations, and that this presumption may be rebutted under certain instances.
Honeywell International Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.
The Federal Circuit holds that rewriting a dependent claim into independent form, coupled with the cancelation of its original independent claim, gives rise to prosecution history estoppel.
Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.
A presumption of prosecution history estoppel may be rebutted by a showing of unforeseeability of the alleged equivalent at the time of the narrowing amendment or by a showing of tangentiality of the alleged equivalent with respect to the rationale for the narrowing amendment.