United States: Foreseeability Does Not Bar The Doctrine Of Equivalents, Including For Means-Plus-Function Limitations

In the recent Ring & Pinion Service Inc. v. ARB Corp. decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the foreseeability of an equivalent at the time of filing does not, in itself, create a bar to reliance on the doctrine of equivalents (DOE).1  The unanimous Federal Circuit panel confirmed that infringement can indeed be found under the DOE, notwithstanding that, at the time of the application, the equivalent limitation in question was foreseeable to one of ordinary skill.2  Further, Ring & Pinion clarifies how the DOE applies to claims written with functional language, and dispels the notion that prior case law ever precluded the application of the DOE to foreseeable equivalents of means-plus-function claim limitations.3

Under the DOE, "a product or process that does not literally infringe upon the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is 'equivalence' between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented invention."4  In another context, notions of "equivalence" are also analyzed when claim terms are drafted in "means-plus-function" form,5 as permitted by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).  When a means-plus-function limitation appears in a claim, it strictly covers only the structures "described in the specification and equivalents thereof."6  There has thus been considerable debate over the last two decades on the application of the DOE to means-plus function limitations.  On the one hand, it is widely recognized that the DOE allows enforceable equivalents to read on insubstantial variations in after-arising technology, in effect compensating for the patent drafter's inability to claim unforeseeable matter.7  On the other hand, it has been suggested that if alternative structures were foreseeable at the time of patenting, then means-plus-function claiming required their disclosure in the originally filed specification in the first place, and should bar reliance on the DOE.  The apparent tension between these "equivalence" concepts was again on display in Ring & Pinion

Declaratory judgment plaintiff Ring & Pinion (R&P) claimed before the trial court that its product did not infringe ARB's patent directed to an improved automobile locking differential.8  Claim 1 was deemed representative:

A locking differential comprising
a differential carrier . . . ,
a locking means . . . , [and]
cylinder means formed in said differential carrier and housing an actuator position[ed] to cause movement of said locking means relative to said carrier . . . .9

There was no dispute that all limitations were literally met in R&P's "Ziplocker" product except for one—the "cylinder means formed" element.  The parties agreed, however, that the "Ziplocker" had an equivalent to the cylinder, albeit one that would have been foreseeable to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent application was filed.  Accordingly, the parties entered a formal stipulation that the infringement analysis hinged on a discrete question of law: whether an equivalent is barred under the DOE because it was foreseeable at the time of the patent application.

The district court held that foreseeability did not, as a matter of law, preclude ARB's reliance on the DOE.  However, the court granted summary judgment of noninfringement because of claim vitiation.10

On appeal, R&P argued that there was a general foreseeability bar to the DOE, relying mainly on an interpretation of Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc.11  That nearly twenty-year-old case was thought by some to have created a new foreseeability rule that reined in the scope of the DOE.  This foreseeability rule, if it existed, would have created a sort of "patent drafter estoppel" whereby equivalent structures that should have been foreseeable during prosecution would be precluded under the DOE.12  The primary rationale for such a rule is public notice.13  While the Federal Circuit has moved away from reading Sage Products to require that applicants literally identify all foreseeable equivalents in the claims,14 the well-worn argument persists.  The Federal Circuit in Ring & Pinion addresses the question directly and, perhaps, permanently.

Judge Moore, writing for the unanimous Federal Circuit panel that included Judges Clevenger and Reyna, observed succinctly that "[t]here is not, nor has there ever been, a foreseeability limitation on the application of the doctrine of equivalents."15  Quite to the contrary, the court noted that known interchangeability can in fact weigh in favor of finding infringement under clear DOE precedent, such that

[e]xcluding equivalents that were foreseeable at the time of patenting would directly conflict with these holdings that "known interchangeability" supports infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.  We conclude that the foreseeability of an equivalent at the time of patenting is not a bar to a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.16

The court distinguished Sage Products, explaining that the scope of the claims there were limited in such a way that they necessarily excluded a structural feature that was the opposite of the one recited in the claim, precluding infringement under the DOE only because it would have entirely vitiated a claim limitation based on the facts of the case.17  Thus, Sage Products was seen as enforcing the traditional "all elements" rule18 and not creating a new foreseeable equivalents bar.19

R&P's fallback position was more modest, arguing that another prior case, Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Industries, Inc.,20 established a foreseeability bar to the application of the DOE specifically for means-plus-function limitations.  The court explained that this R&P argument was equally flawed, and that "[n]othing in Chiuminatta or in any other case cited by R&P supports its assertion that there exists a foreseeability exception to the doctrine of equivalents that applies to means-plus-function or any other claim terms."21 

Recognizing that there could be confusion about the different types of "equivalents"—i.e., equivalents under the DOE and equivalents under § 112(f)—the Federal Circuit further explained that there are two distinctions between these two types of equivalents: differences in timing and differences in function.22

On timing, the court explained that because equivalence in the literal infringement context of § 112(f) is evaluated at the time of a patent's issuance, whereas equivalence in the DOE context is evaluated at the time of infringement, an after-arising technology "can be found to be an equivalent under the doctrine of equivalents even though it cannot be an equivalent under the literal infringement analysis of § 112(f)."23

On function, the court explained that literal infringement requires that the accused structures perform the identical function recited in the claim, whereas the DOE famously covers structures performing substantially the same function in substantially the same way with substantially the same result.  The court explained that "[t]he doctrine of equivalents thus covers structures with equivalent, but not identical functions.  This is true whether the accused equivalent was known at the time of patenting or later arising."24  The DOE as applied to means-plus-function elements, therefore, requires only that the equivalent structure perform substantially the same function, whether known or unknown at patenting.25  The court reminded that "[w]here a finding of non-infringement under § 112(f) is based solely on the lack of identical function, it does not preclude a finding of equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents."  Accordingly, when the accused technology was known at the time of patenting and the functions are identical, the structural equivalence inquiries of the DOE and § 112 are coextensive.26  Nothing in Chiuminatta, reiterated the court, suggests a different approach as it applies to means-plus-function terms.27

Thus, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court's legal conclusion that foreseeability does not create a bar to the application of the DOE.  Having correctly determined the foreseeability issue, however, the trial court should have just entered the stipulation as agreed to by the parties, according to the Federal Circuit, instead of indulging a further vitiation argument.28  The court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment of infringement to ARB.29

Practitioners can perhaps rest more easily after Ring & Pinion.  A restrictive "patent drafter estoppel" was again affirmatively rejected in this latest examination of the question.  Applicants need not exhaustively list every known variation when claim limitations are drafted in means-plus-function format in order to later benefit from the DOE.  Rejecting a per se bar for foreseeable equivalents tends to promote efficiency in claiming and avoids the need to literally cover each insubstantial difference to function in § 112(f) claiming.


1 No. 13-1238, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2962, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2014).

2 Id. at *5-7.

3 Id. at *7-9.

4 Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 21 (1997) (emphasis added).

5 Id. at 27 ("[A]n applicant can describe an element of his invention by the result accomplished or the function served, rather than describing the item or element to be used (e.g., 'a means of connecting Part A to Part B,' rather than 'a two-penny nail').").

6 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (emphasis added).

7 See Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 36-37; see also Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 731-32 (2002).

8 A differential is a mechanism that allows wheels to spin at different speeds.  A locking differential distributes torque from the engine such that wheels spin at the same rate when locked.  See Ring & Pinion, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2962, at *1.

9 U.S. Patent No. 5,591,098, claim 1 (emphasis added).

10 See Ring & Pinion Serv. Inc. v. ARB Corp., No. C09-586-RSM, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14106, at *16-18 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 1, 2013).

11 126 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

12 See, e.g., Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int'l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Rader, J., concurring); Johnson & Johnston Assocs., Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1056-59 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Rader, J., concurring).

13 Johnson & Johnston, 285 F.3d at 1056 (Rader, J., concurring) ("[T]he doctrine of equivalents does not capture subject matter that the patent drafter reasonably could have foreseen during the application process and included in the claims enhances the notice function of [the] claims by making them the sole definition of invention scope in all foreseeable circumstances.").

14 See, e.g., Overhead Door Corp. v. Chamberlain Grp., Inc., 194 F.3d 1261, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1999); WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int'l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1320-21 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

15 Ring & Pinion, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2962, at *4-5.

16 Id. at *6 (citing, inter alia, Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 36 ("The known interchangeability of substitutes for an element of a patent is one of the express objective factors . . . bearing upon whether the accused device is substantially the same as the patented invention.")).

17 Id. at *6-7 (quoting SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

18 The "all elements" rule requires that the accused device contain each limitation of the claim, either literally or by an equivalent, to be infringing.  TIP Sys., LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc., 529 F.3d 1364, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Freedman Seating Co. v. Am. Seating Co., 420 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  Most often, the "all elements" rule serves to prevent vitiation of a claim limitation when the infringement theory is based on the DOE.  Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting in Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 39 n.8 (1997)).

19 Ring & Pinion, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2962, at *6-7 (citing Overhead Door, 194 F.3d at 1271).

20 145 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

21 Ring & Pinion, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2962, at *10.

22 Id. at *8.

23 Id.

24 Id. at *9.

25 Id.

26 Id. (citing Al-Site, 174 F.3d at 1320 n.2 (holding that for preexisting structures where functions are identical, "any analysis for equivalent structure under the doctrine of equivalents collapses into the [§ 112(f)] analysis").

27 Id. at *10.

28 Id. at *11-12 ("A stipulation of fact that is fairly entered into is controlling on the parties and the court is generally bound to enforce it.  Here the partes stipulated to equivalence . . . .").

29 Id. at *13.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
23 Jan 2018, Conference, Bangalore, India

Finnegan is a Bronze sponsor of the 10th annual Global Intellectual Property Convention, hosted by ITAG Business Solutions.

24 Jan 2018, Conference, California, United States

Finnegan is a Crystal sponsor of the American Intellectual Property Law Association Mid-Winter Institute, supporting the IP Practice in Japan Pre-Meeting.

30 Jan 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

As part of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada’s webinar series, Finnegan partners Andrew Holtman and Jason Stach will share their insights on how the PTAB trial process is changing and how patent owners and petitioners alike can best position themselves for success.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions