CSP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SUD-CHEMIE AG (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – The disclosure-dedication rule does not require an explicit labeling of “alternative” embodiments

The disclosure-dedication rule does not require that the specification explicitly label which embodiments are “alternatives” to bar otherwise apparent alternatives from infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Here, for example, even though the specification...

WI-LAN, INC. v. APPLE INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Even small differences can be sufficient to defeat infringement under the doctrine of equivalents

Even small differences in operation or design can be sufficient to defeat infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Here, for example, a parallel architecture that inverted the order of operations for data encoding as compared to the claimed invention, and...

CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. EXELA PHARMA SCIENCES LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Equivalence infringement is not foreclosed simply by a literary “antithesis” of the claimed limitation

Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is not foreclosed simply by the claimed limitation being the literary “antithesis” of the accused infringer’s corresponding feature. Here, for example, no substantial difference was found between deoxygenating before or...

RING & PINION SERVICE INC. v. ARB CORPORATION LTD (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Application of the doctrine of equivalents to means-plus-function limitations

“There is no … foreseeability limit on the doctrine of equivalents,” even for “the application of the doctrine of equivalents for means-plus-function limitations.” Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to an improved automobile locking...