Opinion ID: 2008618
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Order Sustaining Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: The district court subsequently entered an order granting the Estate's motion for summary judgment. It first determined that it was not precluded from doing so by our opinion in New Tek I. It reasoned this court had concluded that the evidentiary record failed to establish a prima facie case of noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents, but had not addressed the issues of law raised by the motion for summary judgment filed following remand; namely, whether the all-elements rule or prosecution history estoppel precluded an infringement analysis under the doctrine of equivalents. The district court determined as a matter of law that New Tek could not have prevailed on a patent infringement claim for two reasons. First, because under the all-elements rule, its theory would vitiate the claim language in New Tek's '080 patent and, second, because prosecution history estoppel barred New Tek's attempt to recapture a purported equivalent that was disclaimed during the prosecution of its underlying '365 patent. New Tek perfected a timely appeal from this order.