April 2, 2021by Mamoru Kakuda
2021年3月9日、CAFCは、単一の要素が複数の要素に置き換わっている場合に、均等論におけるVitiation Doctrineは適用されないと判断する判決を出しました (Edgewell Personal Care Brands v. Munchkin, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2021))。
August 27, 2020by Mamoru Kakuda
2020年8月3日、米国CAFCは、審査中に行った補正の背景にある理由が、問題になっている均等物とtangentialな関係にあるので、この補正によっては均等論の適用は否定されない、と判示する判決（Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020))をしました。
August 18, 2020by Mamoru Kakuda
2020年4月9日、CAFCは、機能性クレームについて、実際の侵害の時点でその侵害の有無を判断できれば不明瞭とはいえない、と判示しました (Nervo Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2020))。
June 18, 2020by Christopher Bayne
Under the doctrine of “claim preclusion” (res judicata), a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit involving the same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.5 (1979). Claim preclusion bars both those claims that were brought as well as those that could have been brought in the earlier lawsuit. Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions Grp., Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1589, 1594-95 (2020).
“Issue preclusion” (collateral estoppel) bars “successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, whether or not the issue arises on the same or a different claim.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748 (2001). Only issues “actually litigated” and “essential to the prior judgment” have preclusive effect. Id.
In addition to “claim preclusion” and “issue preclusion,” the so-called “Kessler doctrine” bars a patent infringement suit against the customer of a seller who had previously prevailed against a patentee in an earlier patent infringement suit. Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285 (1907).
On June 17, 2020, the Federal Circuit (“Court”) issued the precedential opinion of In re PersonalWeb Technologies, Inc. affirming that the Kessler doctrine barred future patent infringement suits against Amazon’s customers, because an earlier lawsuit brought by PersonalWeb against Amazon was dismissed with prejudice.
This decision illustrates that a settlement agreement failing to specify a patent owner’s right to sue can foreclose future patent infringement suits against other potential infringers.
June 1, 2020by Christopher Bayne
The doctrine of equivalents is a judicially-created form of infringement whereby an accused product or process that fails to literally infringe a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is an “equivalence” between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented invention. See, e.g., Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722 (2002); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 21, 29 (1997). The doctrine of equivalents is limited, however, by a number of exceptions including prosecution history estoppel and the disclosure-dedication doctrine.