United States Federal Circuit

A patent infringement action wherein district court barred plaintiff from asserting the doctrine of equivalents is affirmed where plaintiff did not show that: 1) the alleged equivalent was unforeseeable at the time of the narrowing amendment; or 2) the narrowing amendment bore no more than a tangential relation to the alleged equivalent.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/18/2008
• Published 04/18/2008

Judges

• RADER, Circuit Judge., Before NEWMAN, RADER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Robert G. Krupka, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, of Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.   With him on the brief were Jonathan F. Putnam, Lee Ann Stevenson, and Kevin N. Malek, of New York, NY.


• For Appellees:
  
• Mark L. Levine, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, of Chicago, IL, argued for defendant-appellee.   With him on the brief were Chris J. Lind and Brian C. Swanson.   Of counsel on the brief was David H. Herrington, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, of New York, NY.