Energy Transportation Group, Inc. v. William Demant Holding A/S, WDH Inc.
697 F.3d 1342
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- District court denied new trial relief after jury found Demant/Widex infringed ETG patents (‘850 and ‘749).
- ETG asserted ‘850 device claims require a programmable filter in a feedback path; accused LMS adaptive filters allegedly meet this.
- Court adopted district court claim construction that “programmed” means provided with values to produce a response, not limited to external/fixed programming.
- Jury found no anticipation by Graupe for Claim 19; district court upheld noninfringement of the ‘749 patent under prosecution-history estoppel.
- Jury found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for the ‘850 claims 13, 14, 16; damages were awarded and enhanced/related issues were appealed.
- This appeal affirms the district court’s rulings on multiple evidentiary, validity, and infringement issues, and rejects several post-trial challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of "programmed" in the ‘850 claims | ETG argues the term requires external or fixed programming | Demant/Widex contend it covers fixed or internally computed values | Affirmed; no importation of external/fixed limitation; ordinary meaning supported by specification |
| Written description adequacy for the ‘850 patent | Specification shows adaptive programming; supports broader scope | Descriptive support allegedly limited to fixed coefficients | Affirmed; substantial evidence supports written description for full claim scope |
| Anticipation of Claim 19 by Graupe (‘818) | Graupe discloses similar structure; may anticipate | Graupe lacks evaluation of transmission-channel effects and substantial reduction | Affirmed; Graupe does not disclose substantial reduction; no anticipation |
| Doctrine of equivalents for Claims 13,14,16 (‘850) | Adaptive LMS filters infringe under DOE | Prior art Graupe could bar equivalents; no reading on transmission channel | Affirmed; substantial evidence supports DOE infringement and rejects Graupe-based anticipation |
| Prosecution history estoppel as to ‘749 patent equivalents | ETG should reach equivalents despite amendment | Narrowing amendment to measure phase/amplitude limits scope | Affirmed; estoppel bars asserting equivalents for the disputed limitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim terms reviewed in light of specification; not import limitations)
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims reviewed de novo without deference)
- Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (written description requires possession as of filing date)
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (doctrine of equivalents with post-invention technology changes)
- Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Daubert/admissibility and royalty base methodology)
- Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Bev. Can Co., 559 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (doctrine of equivalents function/way/result framework)
- Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (damages framework; reasonableness standards)
- Oiness v. Walgreen Co., 88 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (impact of damages standards on recovery)