Results for literal infringement

Gaus v. Conair Corp.

Case Number: CLB0076

Date: 04.01.2004

Patentee may not utilize the doctrine of equivalents to increase claim scope to include subject matter either expressly or impliedly excluded by the patent itself.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Summit Technology Inc. v. Nidek Co.

Case Number: CLB0053

Date: 03.26.2004

District court properly entered judgment as matter of law that accused excimer laser eye surgical device does not infringe asserted claims of plaintiff’s laser surgery patents because evidence of record does not support conclusion that accused device meets “beam dimension control means” or “means for focusing“ limitations of claims at issue.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral Inc.

Case Number: CLB0001

Date: 03.24.2003

Under the “all-elements rule”, infringement cannot be found by way of the doctrine of equivalents if even one limitation of a claim or its equivalent is not present in the accused device. Thus, when determining the scope of a means-plus-function claim under the doctrine of equivalents, the absence of an element in the accused device that performs the properly construed function, or its equivalent, precludes a finding of infringement.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Jansen v. Rexall Sundown Inc.

Case Number: CLB0015

Date: 09.08.2003

Claims for a method of “treating or preventing” pernicious anemia by administering folic acid and vitamin B12 “to a human in need thereof” are properly construed to require the compound be administered to a human with a recognized need to treat or prevent anemia.

view Case Detail Download PDF