Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Tangential Equivalents: Recent Case Confirms There Is Life After Festo

By Hope Melville and Donald E. Daybell
November 30, 2004

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.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing Image

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.