1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Doctrine Of Equivalents Cannot Eliminate Claim Element

Doctrine Of Equivalents Cannot Eliminate Claim Element

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.19.06

In Planet Bingo, LLC v. Gametech Int'l, Inc. (No. 05-1476; December 13, 2006), the Federal Circuit affirms a decision of the district court in which defendant was found not to infringe Planet Bingo's patents directed to alternative methods for playing bingo. The district court held that the claim language “establishing a predetermined combination as a winning combination for a progressive jackpot” required that the winning combination must be established before the bingo game begins. As defendant's game did not disclose to a player what the winning combination was until after the game began, the district court found no literal infringement. In addition, the district court rejected plaintiff's assertions of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, as interpreting “after” to include “before” would eliminate the requirement that the winning combination be “predetermined.” On appeal, the Federal Circuit states that it “cannot overlook [a] limitation or expand the doctrine of equivalents beyond its purpose to allow recapture of subject matter excluded by a deliberate and foreseeable claim drafting decision,” and, therefore, affirms the district court's decision.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....