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.

Footnotes

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.

Authors
Events from this Firm
22 Jan 2019, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

As part of Strafford Publications’ webinar series, Finnegan partners Shana Cyr and Mark Feldstein will provide essential updates on FDA practice and patent law relating to biologics and biosimilars.

27 Jan 2019, Other, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan is a sponsor of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel Winter Meeting. Finnegan partner Erika Arner will join the panel discussion “PTAB Review & Litigation.”

27 Jan 2019, Other, Florida, United States

Finnegan is a sponsor of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel Winter Meeting. Finnegan partner Erika Arner will join the panel discussion “PTAB Review & Litigation.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

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