Document: 535 U.S. 722 FESTO CORP.v.SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO., LTD., et al. No. 00-1543. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued January 8, 2002. Decided May 28, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR FEDERAL CIRCUIT Petitioner Festo Corporation owns two patents for an industrial device. When patent examiner rejected initial application first because defects in description, 35 U. S. C. § 112, was amended to add new limitations that device would contain a pair one-way sealing rings and its outer sleeve be made magnetizable material. The second also during reexamination proceeding limitation. After began selling device, respondents (hereinafter SMC) entered market with similar uses one two-way ring nonmagnetizable sleeve. filed suit, claiming SMC's is so it infringes Festo's under doctrine equivalents. District ruled Festo, rejecting argument prosecution history estopped from saying equivalent. A Federal Circuit panel initially affirmed, but this granted certiorari, vacated, remanded light Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 17, 29, which had acknowledged competitors may rely on estop patentee recapturing subject matter surrendered by amendment as condition obtaining patent. On remand, en banc reversed, holding estoppel applied. court arises any narrows claim comply Patent Act, not only amendments avoid prior art, held. held that, when applies, bars equivalence element amended. cases, constituted flexible bar, foreclosing some, all, claims equivalence, depending purpose alterations text. However, overruled precedents ground their case-by-case approach proved unworkable. Held: Prosecution apply satisfy Act's requirements, just need bar suit against every equivalent element. Pp. 730-742. (a) To enable holder know what he owns, public does not, inventor must describe his work "full, clear, concise, exact terms." 112. language complete precision range invention's novelty. If were always interpreted literal terms, value greatly diminished. Insubstantial substitutes certain elements could defeat patent, inventors destroyed simple acts copying. Thus, patent's scope limited embraces all equivalents described. See Winans Denmead, 15 How. 330, 347. Nevertheless, difficult determine is, or equivalent, deterred engaging legitimate manufactures outside limits, lulled into developing competing products secures, thereby prompting wasteful litigation. Each time has considered equivalents, uncertainty price ensuring appropriate incentives innovation, affirmed over dissents urged more rule. See, e. g., id., at 343, Most recently, Warner-Jenkinson, supra, reaffirmed doctrine. 730-733. (b) requires proceedings before Trademark Office (PTO). originally claimed alleged infringe then narrowed response rejection, argue territory comprised unforeseen Exhibit Supply Ace Patents Corp., 315 126, 136-137. rejection indicates believe original patented. While right appeal, decision forgo appeal submit taken concession invention patented reach far claim. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Davis, 102 222, 228. Were otherwise, might PTO's gatekeeping role seek recapture infringement action very receiving 733-735. (c) intended narrow matter, narrowing Act requirement, including 112's requirements concerning application's form. In clear applies "substantial reason related patentability," S., 33, did purport catalog raise estoppel. Indeed, stated even if amendment's unrelated patentability, consider whether kind nonetheless require Id., 40-41. Simply been discussed most often context see, 30, follow other purposes will give rise Section 112 describe, enable, set forth best mode carrying out invention. should issue these are satisfied, applicant's failure meet them lead issued being invalid later concern form conflates patentee's making impact matter. Estoppel secure scope. truly cosmetic, But necessary — better description apply. 735-737. (d) asserting Though can challenges wide examination amendment. Circuit's rule inconsistent applying place hold representations process inferences reasonably drawn By amending application, deemed concede extend claim, perfect no devise Court's view consistent precedent PTO practice. consistently applied way, considering prosecution, rather than imposing resorts literalism designed overcome. E. Dental, 230. ignored Warner-Jenkinson's instruction courts cautious adopting changes disrupt settled expectations inventing community. 28. Inventors who previous case law they conceding Had known, have appealed instead. struck balance placing burden prove 33. Similarly, bear showing surrender particular question. As author language, through presumed general disclaimer between Supply, cases cannot viewed surrendering where unforeseeable rationale underlying bears tangential relation rebut presumption finding skilled art expected drafted literally encompassed 737-741. (e) Whether rebutted presumptions determined instance further below. 741-742. 234 F. 3d 558, vacated remanded. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Robert H. Bork argued cause petitioner. With him briefs Charles R. Hoffmann, Gerald T. Bodner, Glenn Henneberger, Anthony Bennett, Andrew L. Frey, Donald M. Falk, Bronston. Deputy Solicitor General Wallace States amicus curiae. brief Olson, Acting Assistant Attorney Schiffer, Jeffrey P. Minear, Vito J. DiPietro, Steinmeyer, Howard Scher, Linda Moncys Isacson. Arthur I. Neustadt respondents. Gholz, Pous, James B. Lampert.* JUSTICE KENNEDY 1 This us address once again concepts, same concepts 17 (1997), protects efforts copyists evade liability insubstantial At time, we appreciated extending protection beyond terms create substantial about monopoly ends. 29. unclear, unable permitted alternative infringing 2 reduce uncertainty, history, record proceedings. some (PTO) earlier version statutory requirement patentability. 132 (1994 ed., Supp. V). responds claims, estops arguing covered original, broader nothing Competitors ensure own devices found equivalence. 3 now review Appeals obtain surrenders asserts departs past respects. First, pre-emption invention, i. e., art. Second, holds arises, departed history. argues replacing cast doubt many existing law, stood, rigorous standard. 4 We certiorari questions. 5 * improved magnetic rodless cylinder, piston-driven relies magnets move objects conveying system. employed machinery diverse sewing equipment Thunder Mountain ride Disney World. Although precise details cylinder's operation essential here, considered. 6 Petitioner's applications, occurs, Stoll (U. 4,354,125), after method unclear impermissible way. (They multiply dependent.) ed.). inventor, Dr. Stoll, submitted examiner's objections added references 37 CFR 1.56 (2000). Carroll 3,779,401), proceeding. well. Both limitation inventions rings, each having lip side, prevent impurities getting piston assembly. shell sleeve, 7 (whom refer similar, identical, ones disclosed patents. using employs single lip. Furthermore, alloy. fall within either petitioner contends 8 SMC magnetized alloy product both applications. view, alternatives points difference type used make ways order patents, says SMC, features immaterial own. 9 Massachusetts disagreed. It therefore affirmed. 72 857 (1995). our intervening (1997). 172 1361 (1999), ordered rehearing questions divided judges since Warner-Jenkinson. 187 1381 (1999). 10 barred accused infringed 558 held, judge dissenting, 566. More controversial holding: stands 574-575. go far. Previous decisions concluded, however, flexible-bar court's complete-bar rule, element, promote certainty determination cases. 11 Four dissented adopt bar. 562. four separate opinions, dissenters majority's overrule contrary unsettle patentees. Judge Michel, dissent, described detail how required disregard older Court, well 50 3d, 601-616. 12 certiorari. 533 915 (2001). II 13 laws "promote Progress Science useful Arts" rewarding innovation temporary monopoly. Const., Art. I, cl. 8. property right; like right, boundaries clear. clarity progress, enables efficient investment innovation. not. For reason, terms," part delicate attempts maintain inventors, promise bring forth, public, encouraged pursue innovations, creations, ideas inventor's exclusive rights. Bonito Boats, Inc. Craft Inc., 489 141, 150 (1989). 14 Unfortunately, nature makes impossible capture essence thing application. chooses disclose exploit secret, risk others devote toward exploiting limits language: "An exists importantly tangible structure series drawings. verbal portrayal usually afterthought written law. conversion machine words allows unintended idea gaps satisfactorily filled. Often novel do exist it. dictionary keep abreast inventor. cannot. Things sake words, things." Autogiro America States, 384 2d 391, 397 (Ct. Cl. 1967). 16 nuance Unimportant clearest interpretation, literalism, conserve judicial resources necessarily instead 347 (1854). true renders less certain. extent, invest mistake secures. addition litigation competitors, suits avoid. These concerns new. doctrine, adopted become "[t]he secured, liberty copies it, varying proportions." 343. dissent sacrificed objective "[f]ul[l]ness, clearness, exactness, preciseness, particularity, invention." (opinion Campbell, J.). 18 debate continued Graver Tank & Mfg. Linde Air Products 339 605 (1950), protect those produce falling "make unimportant substitutions which, though adding nothing, enough take copied hence law." 607. Justice Black, objected competitor "cannot claims. He able, peril heavy damages, forecast relatively unversed technological field expand claim's ...." 617. 19 remain firmly entrenched rights protected concluded discarded, Congress so: 20 "[T]he lengthy strongly supports adherence refusal find conflicts legislate existence chooses. various policy arguments sides thus addressed Congress, Court." III 21 process. "rule construction" ensures reference "that cancelled rejected." Schriber-Schroth Cleveland Trust 311 211, 220-221 (1940). captured drafting created trivial changes. When, contrary, "[b]y [the patentee] recognized emphasized phrases[,] ... [t]he disclaimed regarded material." 136-137 (1942). 22 228 (1880) ("In amendment] there understood patented, commissioner manufacture exclusively vulcanites detailed process"); Wang Laboratories, Mitsubishi Electronics America, 103 1571, 1577-1578 (CA Fed. 1997) ("Prosecution preclud[es] regaining, litigation, coverage relinquished patent"). 23 remains tied purpose. Where embraced purported validity, assert lacked premised language's inability describing undercuts premise. established turned attention question, knew narrower affirmatively chose latter. 24 question kinds arise instance, Our "prior reasons," such "to otherwise specific obviousness arguably rendered unpatentable." 30-32. define term resort 25 correct 137; Keystone Driller Northwest Engineering 294 42, 48 (1935). Amendment accommodate emphasis, too, 30. follow, inference indescribable. That cease simply amendment, avoiding 26 agree explained, number satisfied issue. useful, novel, obvious. §§ 101-103 ed. addition, latter issuance given exchange disclosing public. 150-151. What specification; 27 applicant clarify ambiguous term, improve translation foreign word, rewrite dependent independent one. argues, intention challenging devices. petitioner's 28 hand, disavows regard conceded least abandoned rejection. B 29 concedes composition reasons conclusion gives presented: Does still infringe? strict terms. Based upon experience decided unworkable leads excessive burdens disagree 30 distributed avoids inquiry establishing per se rule; becomes before, imperfect fit demonstrate not; fail precisely is. There why relinquish fair interpretation surrendered. Nor call foreclose aspects peripheral submitted. show suddenly foresight whose without shows familiar text two. result, abolishing altogether 31 respectful real practice PTO. weighed merits rigid 230; Hurlbut Schillinger, 130 456, 465 (1889). 32 guidance instructed responsibility changing rests Congress. Ibid. Fundamental rules destroying property. requested another bright-line provided determining cost disrupting countless holders. approach: "To change substantially game subvert balances sought strike issuing numerous yet expired affected decision." 32, n. 6; see 41 (GINSBURG, concurring) ("The presumption, woodenly, instances unfairly discount notice apply"). recognized, occurs regime justification robust relied 33 patentability: 34 "Where explanation established, presume patentability limiting circumstances, element." explain "bar[s] mandate bar; circumstance "no established." They provide, language. 36 Just proving estoppel, here advocated Brief Amicus Curiae 22-28, sound. patentee, draft encompassing readily known ("By phrases proclaimed abandonment difference"). application; question; suggesting substitute overcome then, name. Rather, reflects fact begin relevant construing chosen composed awareness claimed. instances, IV 38 us, say references. relating effect questions, prevail, noted expressly matters, 39 judgment opinion. 40 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal American Bar Association Hirshon, Figg, Minaksi Bhatt, Cameron; Intellectual Property Law Lawrence Sung Janice Mueller; ASTA Medica Aktiengesellschaft Steven Kelber; Bose Corp. Hieken Frank Porcelli; Celltech Group plc. Chisum; Chiron Mr. Claire Laporte, Mitchell Matorin, George Hutchinson; Fédération Internationale des Conseils Propriété Industrielle Maxim Waldbaum, Raymond Stewart, John Sutton, Tipton D. Jennings IV; Houston Sharon A. Israel; Creators Winter; Litton Systems, G. Roberts, Jr., Catherine Stetson, Rory Radding, Stanton III; Minnesota Mining Manufacturing Carter Phillips, Joseph Guerra, Mark Haddad, Gary Griswold, Armitage, Philip Johnson, Wayne Jaeschke, Peter Richardson, Kenneth Olson; National Edward W. Gray, Kendrew Colton, Moses; Institute Phillip Chandler; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation Susan Braden, Kevin O'Brien, Michael Murphy; Vincent Tassinari Tassinari, pro se. amici affirmance Consumer Project Technology Joshua Sarnoff; Genentech, Kushan Marinn Carlson; Intel Terry Fenzl, Alan Blankenheimer, Ross Cabot; International Business Machines Christopher Hughes, Abate, Frederick Boehm, Chadurjian, William Coughlin, Barry Estrin, Richard Whiting. Applera Matthew Powers Reines; Electrical Engineers-United Greenberg Conigliaro; Medimmune, Harvey Kurzweil Henry Ricardo; Patent, Trademark, Copyright Columbia Atkins; Philadelphia Joan Taft Kluger Manny Pokotilow; Sean Patrick Suiter Suiter,

Category: 7