Claims Must Be Construed In View of Prosecution History
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.06.07
The Federal Circuit, in Bass Pro Trademarks, L.L.C. v. Cabela's, Inc., (No. 2006-1276, April 6, 2007), vacates a district court's contempt order that had found that the defendant's redesigned device had infringed the plaintiff's patent in violation of a settlement agreement and consent judgment that resulted from a previous patent infringement suit. The court explains that the granting of a contempt order for the violation of an injunction against infringement by a modified device, requires that the modified device infringes the patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. In construing the claims, the Federal Circuit determines that the term "vest," as used in the particular patent claims, is a "material element" of the claims based on statements made throughout the prosecution history - particularly arguments made in distinguishing the invention from the prior art. The Court holds that the defendant did not infringe the claims because their device does not contain a "vest."
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
