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 | 4 min read | 10.30.26

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right: GAO Sustains Protest Where Agency Tried to Fix PIA Violation with a Second PIA Violation

Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”...