Opinion ID: 2008618
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: new tek i

Text: In New Tek I, we first rejected the Estate's contention that we lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We concluded that the case did not arise under federal patent law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (2000), but, rather, was a professional negligence action arising entirely under state law. We noted that the precise question is not whether Orthman Manufacturing infringed on the '080 patent, but, rather, whether, absent Beehner's negligence, New Tek would have been successful in an infringement action against Orthman. [5] Next, we rejected New Tek's contention that the district court erred in holding a  Markman hearing, pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., [6] for the purpose of construing the patent. We concluded that it was well established that claim construction is a question of law for a court to decide. [7] We also determined that the district court did not err in construing element 4, claim 22, of patent No. 34,080 (the '080 patent) as a means-plus-function element. And, we rejected New Tek's argument that the patent had intrinsic value recoverable even in the absence of damages resulting from the loss of a potential infringement action. We then addressed the dispositive issue of whether the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that New Tek could not establish infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, which doctrine prevents a copyist from evading patent claims with insubstantial changes. [8] We stated that [t]he doctrine of equivalents does not require a one-to-one correspondence of components [9] and that [t]he vantage point of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art provides the perspective for assessing the substantiality of the differences between the claimed invention and the accused device. [10] We noted that the district court had determined that a substantial difference existed and that the Orthman device did not infringe on claim 22. The court noted that claim 22 specifically described a pivotal connection between each hydraulic cylinder in element 4 and the elongated member and respective lever. The Orthman device, on the other hand, employs a single hydraulic cylinder, directly mounted on the elongated member without employing a pivotal connection. The court did not address whether the single hydraulic cylinder of the Orthman device was equivalent to the two hydraulic cylinders recited in claim 22 of the '080 patent; rather, the court concluded that the difference between a pivotal connection and direct mount to the end of the hydraulic cylinder on the elongated member was substantial. [11] We concluded that determination of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is an issue of fact and that as the party moving for summary judgment, the Estate had not met its prima facie burden to show that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We noted that the Estate's expert provided no ... basis for a finding of noninfringement and that aside from the conclusory opinion of New Tek's expert that the device made by Orthman Manufacturing (the Orthman device), infringed on the '080 patent, there was no evidence that would permit a trier of fact to conclude, one way or the other, whether one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would consider the difference between element 4, claim 22, of the '080 patent and the corresponding structure of the Orthman device to be substantial, or whether the different structure of the Orthman device is merely an insubstantial change which adds nothing of significance to the structure disclosed in the '080 patent specification. [12] We concluded that [t]he defect in the [Estate's] motion for summary judgment was its failure to present evidence regarding the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art. [13] We also determined that [t]he district court erred in construing the pivotal connection as a `limitation,' instead of determining whether the structure of the Orthman device was equivalent ... to the overall structure corresponding to the function recited in element 4. [14] We therefore reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the cause for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. We overruled the Estate's motion for rehearing and issued our mandate.