Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a dispute over patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, following the U.S. Supreme Court's remand in light of the Festo decision. The parties are engaged in a patent infringement litigation where the primary legal issue concerns the effect of claim amendments and the presumption of disclaimer of intermediate territory. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. established that a patentee's narrowing of claims is presumptively a disclaimer, unless exceptions such as unforeseeability, tangential relation, or the patentee's inability to describe the equivalent apply. The court has reinstated the appeals and requires the parties to submit additional briefs, limited to 5000 words and due within 30 days, addressing whether the amendment made by Intermatic Inc., specifically adding 'within the aperture' to its claims, surrenders the equivalent it now asserts. The outcome will be based on these submissions and existing court filings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Doctrine of Equivalents and Claim Amendmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examines the applicability of the Festo decision, which presumes that narrowing claim amendments constitute a disclaimer of intermediate territory unless exceptions apply.
Reasoning: Specifically, a patentee's narrowing of claims through amendment is presumed to constitute a disclaimer of the territory between the original and amended claims, unless certain exceptions apply.
Exceptions to Presumption of Disclaimersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case requires assessing whether any exceptions to the presumption of disclaimer apply, including unforeseeability, tangential relation, or inability of the patentee to describe the equivalent.
Reasoning: These exceptions include scenarios where the equivalent was unforeseeable at the time of the application, where the rationale for the amendment has only a tangential relationship to the equivalent, or other reasons indicating that the patentee could not reasonably be expected to have described the equivalent.
Procedural Requirements for Brief Submissionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court orders parties to submit briefs within a specified word limit and timeframe to address the application of new Supreme Court criteria.
Reasoning: The court will make a decision based on the existing filings and the additional briefs, which must be submitted within 30 days of this Order and are limited to 5000 words.
Reinstatement of Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeals in the case were reinstated following a remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, necessitating further examination under new guidelines established in Festo.
Reasoning: The mandates issued on February 13, 2002, have been recalled, and the appeals are reinstated due to a remand from the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Intermatic Inc. v. Lamson.