Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Tangential Equivalents: Recent Case Confirms There Is Life After Festo
On Oct. 4, 2004, the Federal Circuit rendered its opinion in Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc. (“Insituform IV“), 385 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004). This opinion is the first post-Festo Federal Circuit opinion that finds a successful rebuttal of the Festo presumption (eg, the presumption of the surrender of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents due to prosecution history estoppel) based on the “tangential relationship” prong of Festo. This case seems to set a fairly low bar for the rebuttal of the presumption. This is a significant development given the Federal Circuit's apparent desire to restrict the doctrine of equivalents (as reflected in its initial Festo ruling that was reversed by the Supreme Court, as well as by the tenor of the post-reversal Festo opinion).
The patent at issue in Insituform IV concerns a process for impregnating a pipe liner with resin. The process requires applying a vacuum to the inside of the liner using “a” vacuum cup attached to a vacuum source and connected to a hole cut in the outside of the liner near the resin. The resulting vacuum draws the resin into the liner. When the resin is drawn in up to the level of the vacuum cup, the cup is moved to another hole cut in the liner further along the length of the liner. The accused method differed from the claimed method only in that the accused method used multiple vacuum cups rather than “a” cup.
Following a bench trial (and several appeals), a judgment of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was entered by the district court. The issue on appeal in Insituform IV was whether the doctrine of equivalents was barred by prosecution history estoppel, and in particular how the recent Festo decision affected this determination.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?