Opinion ID: 208680
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Infringement of claim 35 by the AAT1143 and AAT1146 devices

Text: The Commission found that the AAT1143 and AAT1146 do not infringe, either literally or by equivalents, because the accused products monitor voltage and monitoring voltage using a voltage threshold do[es] not meet the limitations of `monitoring the current to the load' or `monitoring the current' using a `current threshold.' Final Determination, slip op. at 51. We have already determined, however, that construing claim 35 to exclude monitoring voltage to indirectly monitor current was an error. See supra Discussion I.E. Thus, because this error caused the Commission to improperly conclude that the monitoring the current to the load limitation was not met and because the Commission did not identify any other missing claim limitation in the accused products, its finding of noninfringement is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore vacate its ruling that the AAT1143 and AAT1146 do not literally infringe claim 35, as well as its decision relating to infringement of claim 35 under the doctrine of equivalents. See, e.g., Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc., 53 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed.Cir.1995) ([T]he court clearly erred in finding no literal infringement. We therefore vacate as moot that part of the court's decision relating to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.). Accordingly, we remand for a determination of infringement according to the correct claim construction. See, e.g., Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int'l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir.2005) (We vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement and remand for a determination of literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents under the correct claim construction.).