United States Federal Circuit

In an action for infringement of patents related to technology for reducing acoustic feedback in a programmable digital hearing aid, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the record amply supports the district court's construction of "programmed," which is consistent with the plain meaning of the term and its usage in the specification; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motions for JMOL of invalidity and no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for the '850 patent;3) district court did not err in denying defendants' request for a new trial; 4) defendants waived their challenges to the damages amount; 5) district court did not abuse its discretion by following the standard rule of awarding pre-judgment interest; and 6) district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a JMOL on noninfringement of the '749 patent under the doctrine of equivalents in determining that the prosecution history estoppel bars assertion of equivalents in this case.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/12/2012
• Published 10/12/2012

Judges

• Rader

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel