Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC
703 F.3d 1349
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- The district court construed “into engagement with” to require direct contact and granted summary judgment of noninfringement against Deere on the ’980 Patent.
- The ’980 Patent discloses an easy-clean, dual-wall deck that forms a torsionally stiff box to keep debris off the deck and improve cleaning.
- Claim 1 requires the upper deck wall to slope and engage the lower deck wall, with connectors providing engagement.
- Accused Bush Hog and Great Plains products use intermediate connectors between upper and lower deck walls, not direct contact.
- The court vacated the district court’s “into engagement with” construction, reversed the noninfringement grant, and remanded for further proceedings; it also addressed validity and claim indefiniteness issues, and later streamlined other constructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “into engagement with” | Deere argues for broader engagement including indirect contact. | Bush Hog/Great Plains argue engagement requires direct contact. | Engagement can be indirect; district ruling vacated. |
| Rotary cutter deck as a claim limitation | Preamble supports Deere’s broader definition excluding consumer lawn mowers. | Preamble not limiting; no exclusion of prior art. | Rotary cutter deck is a claim limitation; Deere’s broader scope rejected. |
| Substantially planar indefiniteness | Substantially planar is unclear. | Term is indefinite. | Substantially planar is not indefinable; doctrine affirmed. |
| Easily washed off indefiniteness | “Easily” is a meaningful, objective standard. | Vagueness renders indefinite. | Not indefinite; intrinsic evidence provides guidance. |
| Doctrine of equivalents vitiation | Deere can rely on equivalents despite missing literal element. | Vitiation bars equivalents when element is absent. | District court erred; vitiation does not bar reasonable equivalence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005 (en banc)) (claims read in context of entire patent; avoid importing limitations from spec.)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claims interpreted by intrinsic evidence; dictionary meaning alone insufficient.)
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1997) (doctrine of equivalents requires element-by-element analysis.)
- TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indirect contact can be equivalent to direct contact for “contact” term.)
- Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (limits on applying the doctrine of equivalents to avoid overbroad coverage.)
- Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (indefiniteness analysis; relative terms not necessarily fatal.)
- Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (relative terms like ‘substantially’ are common and definable.)
- Poly-America, L.P. v. GSE Lining Tech., Inc., 383 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (relative term interpretation guiding claim scope.)