Ring & Pinion Service Inc. v. Arb Corporation Ltd
743 F.3d 831
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- ARB appeals district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’098 patent.
- The Ziplocker product allegedly lacks the claimed “cylinder means formed in” limitation but includes an equivalent cylinder.
- Parties stipulated there were no material facts regarding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, with the outcome depending on whether a foreseen equivalent can be used.
- District court held foreseeability does not prevent the doctrine of equivalents but would vitiate the claim limitation if found infringing under equivalents.
- The court did not enforce the stipulation and ruled non-infringement; the Federal Circuit reverses and remands for infringement finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foreseeability bars the doctrine of equivalents? | ARB argues foreseeability prevents equivalence. | R&P argues a bar exists or should be extended by law. | Foreseeability is not a bar to the doctrine of equivalents. |
| Must the district court enforce the joint stipulation to find infringement? | ARB contends the stipulation mandates infringement finding. | R&P argues stipulation does not bind the court on this point. | Stipulation should be enforced; it precludes vitiation as a basis to deny infringement. |
| Does vitiation restrict the doctrine of equivalents for means-plus-function terms? | N/A (issue resolution seeks to preserve equivalence notwithstanding vitiation). | N/A | No per se foreseen restriction; vitiation is a separate legal determination. |
| Is the district court’s all-limitations analysis correct? | N/A | N/A | Not necessary to discuss given enforceable stipulation and standard principles. |
| What governs timing of the doctrine of equivalents inquiry for means-plus-function terms? | N/A | N/A | Doctrine of equivalents applies at infringement, not at patent issuance; timing favors ARB. |
Key Cases Cited
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (Sup. Ct. 1997) (known interchangeability guides equivalents analysis)
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605 (Sup. Ct. 1950) (interchangeability as a factor in equivalence)
- Interactive Pictures Corp. v. Infinite Pictures, Inc., 274 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (equivalents apply to function and structure beyond literal claim terms)
- Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc., 126 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (foreseeability did not create a universal bar; vitiation context in Sage)
- Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Industries, Inc., 145 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (distinguishes timing and function between §112(f) and doctrine of equivalents)
- Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (pre-existing structures may collapse §112(f) and equivalents analyses)
- Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (stipulation and equivalence issues addressed in grant of infringement)
- Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (analysis of equivalents and means-plus-function)