United States Federal Circuit

For purposes of the doctrine of equivalents, a claim that a device has "an ellipse" does not narrow the scope of a claim against a device with a "a major diameter," because an inherent characteristic of an ellipse is a major diameter.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/17/2001
• Published 12/17/2001

Judges

• MAYER, Chief Judge., Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Gregory A. Madera,Fish & Richardson, P.C., of Boston, MA, argued for plaintiff-appellee.   With him on the brief were Charles Hieken, Jolynn M. Lussier, and Steven R. Katz. Of counsel on the brief was Shelley K. Wessells, Fish & Richardson P.C., of Menlo Park, CA., David Boies, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, of Armonk, NY, argued for defendants-appellants.   With him on the brief was Alan B. Vickery.   Of counsel on the brief were Victor G. Savikas, and Maria K. Nelson, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, of Los Angeles, CA. Also of counsel on the brief were Gregory A. Castanias, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, of Washington, DC;  and Darryl E. Towell, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue of Irvine, CA.