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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights