United States Federal Circuit

In a patent dispute involving a method for cooling a person through evaporation via use of a certain material, summary judgment of non-infringement for defendant is affirmed where: 1) although the district court erred in finding the doctrine of equivalents barred by prosecution history estoppel and in comparing the accused product to the patentee's commercial embodiment; nevertheless, 2) plaintiff did not satisfy its burden to present particularized evidence of equivalents in opposition to the summary judgment motion.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/27/2007
• Published 02/27/2007

Judges

• DYK, Circuit Judge., Before RADER and DYK, Circuit Judges, and WHYTE, District Judge .

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Jack A. Wheat, Stites & Harbison, of Louisville, KY, argued for plaintiff-appellant.   With him on the brief were William C. Ferrell, Jr., James R. Michels, and Richard S. Myers, of Nashville, TN.


• For Appellees:
  
• James A. DeLanis, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., of Nashville, TN, argued for defendant-appellee.   With him on the brief was W. Edward Ramage.