Opinion ID: 475864
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents

Text: 54 The district court's decision does not mention the reverse doctrine of equivalents. Rolls-Royce says GTE never mentioned the doctrine in the '093 chain pleadings or testimony, and presented no evidence on the factual issue of equivalency (or lack thereof). (Emphasis Rolls-Royce's). GTE's response, that it raised the reverse doctrine of equivalents in its opposition to Rolls-Royce's motion for summary judgment, and in its pretrial and post-trial briefs, is unavailing. Judgments rendered after trial are based on what transpired at trial. Oppositions to motions and briefs are not themselves evidence at trial, and GTE's effort to rely on those papers here is inappropriate. An appeal is not a means for counsel to cure mistakes and omissions made at trial. 8 In sum, GTE never contended before the district court that its accused Cusack device has been so far changed in principle that it performs the same or similar function in a substantially different way. SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107, 1124, 227 USPQ 577, 587 (Fed.Cir.1985) (in banc). It cannot be heard to make that argument here, and its attack on the district court for not discussing what was never presented at trial is not only bold and reckless, as Rolls-Royce points out, it is improper. See Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Duphar International Research B.V., 738 F.2d 1237, 1243-44, 222 USPQ 649, 654 (Fed.Cir.1984). 55 There being no evidence adduced at trial in support of a requested finding that the accused device was so changed in principle that it performs in a substantially different way, GTE's argument based on the reverse doctrine of equivalents is rejected. 56