Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. Guidetech, LLC.
707 F.3d 1342
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- GuideTech appeals district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of three related patents.
- Patents cover time interval analyzers that measure timing errors in high-speed digital signals with a time-interval measuring circuit.
- '231 patent claims a circuit with a signal channel, multiple measurement circuits within the channel, and a processor circuit; issue is whether two measurement circuits are defined within a single signal channel in BI200/BI220.
- '671 and '649 patents claim internal circuitry where a capacitor is operatively disposed in parallel with respect to a first current circuit; issue is whether the BI200/BI220 capacitor is in parallel with the first current circuit.
- District court construed disputed terms and granted noninfringement; on appeal the court reverses the grant for '231 and finds genuine issues for the doctrine of equivalents for '671/'649.
- The case is remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do BI200/BI220 have two measurement circuits within one signal channel? | GuideTech: two circuits are contained within a single channel in One-Channel-Two-Edge mode. | Brilliant: each channel contains one measurement circuit; second circuit is borrowed in mode. | Genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment. |
| Whether the '671/'649 capacitor in the accused device is in parallel with the first current circuit under doctrine of equivalents? | GuideTech: capacitor and shunt form parallel paths as claimed; equivalents possible. | Brilliant: capacitor is part of the first current circuit; cannot be equivalent under proper test. | Genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment on equivalents. |
| Was there literal infringement of the '231 patent? | GuideTech: evidence shows two measurement circuits within one channel in operation. | Brilliant: district court correctly concluded no two circuits contained in one channel. | District court erred; reversal and remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., 559 F.3d 1308 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (doctrine of equivalents requires insubstantial differences)
- Planet Bingo, LLC v. GameTech Int’l, Inc., 472 F.3d 1338 (Fed.Cir. 2006) (vitiation framework for equivalents consequences)
- Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349 (Fed.Cir. 2012) (vitiation concept and equivalence testing explained)
- Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple Inc., 692 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir. 2012) (limitation-by-limitation doctrine of equivalents principle)
- Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (apply function-way-result or insubstantial differences tests)
- Shum v. Intel Corp., 633 F.3d 1067 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (process for analyzing equivalence and burden on moving party)