Opinion ID: 3066527
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Remand from the Supreme Court

Text: The Supreme Court vacated and remanded our decision in Festo I. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 525 U.S. 722 (2002) (“Festo II”). In Festo II, the Court overruled the complete bar we established in Festo I, establishing a flexible bar instead. Id. at 738 (“[W]e have consistently applied the doctrine [of equivalents] in a flexible way, not a rigid one.”). The Court also held, inter alia, that where the equivalent was “unforeseeable at the time of the amendment” or the rationale underlying the amendment bore “only a peripheral relation” to the equivalent, the patentee could rebut the so-called “Festo-presumption.” Id. at 740. That presumption is that a narrowing amendment made for a reason of patentability surrenders the entire territory between the original and the amended claim limitation. Id. Accordingly, the Court vacated our decision in Insituform III and remanded the case to us for further proceedings in light of its decision in Festo II. Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc., 535 U.S. 1108 (2002).