Legal Document

520 U.S. 17117 S.Ct. 1040137 L.Ed.2d 146 WARNER-JENKINSON COMPANY, INC., Petitionerv.HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO. No. 95-728. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Oct. 15, 1996. Decided March 3, 1997. Syllabus* Petitioner and respondent both manufacture dyes from which impurities must be removed. Respondent's "'746 patent,'' issued in 1985, discloses an improved purification process involving "ultrafiltration'' dye through a porous membrane at pH levels between 6.0 9.0. The inventors so limited their claim's element during patent prosecution after examiner objected because perceived overlap with earlier "Booth'' patent, disclosed ultrafiltration operating above In 1986, petitioner developed its own process, operated level 5.0. Respondent sued for infringement '746 relying solely on "doctrine equivalents,'' under product or that does not literally infringe upon express terms claim may nonetheless found to if there is "equivalence'' elements accused claimed patented invention. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 605, 609, 70 854, 856-857, 94 L.Ed. 1097. Over petitioner's objections this equitable doctrine applied by court, equivalence issue was included among those sent jury, found, inter alia, infringed patent. District Court, rulings, entered permanent injunction against petitioner. en banc Federal Circuit affirmed, holding equivalents continues exist, question jury decide, had substantial evidence conclude substantially different Held: 1.The adheres equivalents. Pp. ____-____. (a) Tank, supra, S.Ct., described some considerations go into applying doctrine, such as patent's context, prior art, particular circumstances case, including purpose ingredient used qualities it has when combined other ingredients, function intended perform, whether persons reasonably skilled art would have known interchangeability contained one was. (b) This rejects primary argument, equivalents, set out 1950, inconsistent with, thus did survive, aspects Congress' 1952 revision Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §100 et seq. Petitioner's first three arguments regard-that (1) §112's requirement patentee specifically "claim'' covered invention, (2) circumvents reissue §§251-252, (3) primacy Trademark Office (PTO) setting scope-were made 613-615, n. 858-860, context 1870 failed command majority. Act materially regard these matters. Also unpersuasive fourth implicitly rejected general matter specific inclusion §112, ¶6. new provision enacted targeted cure response Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Walker, 329 1, 8, 67 6, 9-10, 91 thereby allow so-called "means'' claims describing invention result accomplished served. Moreover, statutory reference "equivalents'' appears no more than prophylactic potential side effects cure, i.e., attempt limit application broad literal language means are "equivalent'' actual shown specification. (c) determination should objective inquiry element-by-element basis. concerned come broadly since conflicts Court's numerous holdings enlarged beyond scope claims. way reconcile two lines authority apply each individual claim, rather whole. Doing will preserve meaning elements, all deemed material defining invention's scope. So long encroach limits, related limits discussed opinion, infra, __-__, __, vitiate central functions define notify public (d) correct supersede well-established limitation "prosecution history estoppel,'' whereby surrender subject preclude recapturing any part matter, even equivalent expressly claimed. But reaches too far arguing establishes bright line claimed, reason amendment therefore irrelevant subsequent estoppel. There variety reasons why PTO request change language, patent-holder demonstrates unrelated patentability, court consider order decide estoppel precluded. Where unable establish purpose, presume behind required apply. Here, undisputed upper 9.0 added distinguish Booth but record before reveal adding lower limit. It impossible tell latter could properly avoid (e) argument requires judicial exploration intent alleged infringer case's equities allowing Although certainly leaves room intent-based read case requiring proof intent. better view, consistent Tank's predecessors, see e.g., Winans Denmead, 15 How. 330, 343, 14 717, approach infringement, plays role doctrine's application. (f) also proposal minimize conflict notice claims, within itself. Insofar element, proper time evaluating equivalency-and knowledge elements-is issued. P. 1053. (g) declines task judge resolution necessary answer here presented. (h) linguistic framework determine "equivalence,'' "triple identity'' test "insubstantial differences'' test, less important probative essential inquiry: Does contain identical invention? Different frameworks suitable cases, depending facts. Circuit's sound judgment area special expertise refine formulation orderly course case-by-case determinations. 1054. 2.Because requirements particularly preservation further proceedings necessary. 62 F.3d 1512, reversed remanded. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. GINSBURG, filed concurring KENNEDY, joined. Richard G. Taranto, Washington, DC, Lawrence Wallace, amicus curiae David E. Schmit, Cincinnati, OH, respondent. Justice THOMAS 1 Nearly 50 years ago, 1097 (1950), modern contours what law equivalents.'' Under Id., 856-857. Petitioner, respondent's invites us speak death doctrine. We decline invitation. significant disagreement Appeals concerning suggests, however, free confusion. thereforewill endeavor clarify 2 * facts few. Warner-Jenkinson Hilton Davis Chemical dyes. Impurities holds 4,560,746 ('746 patent), "ultrafiltration.'' filters impure certain pressures levels,1 resulting high purity product. 3 1985. As relevant improvement follows: 4 "In . comprises: subjecting aqueous solution having nominal pore diameter 5-15 Angstroms hydrostatic pressure approximately 200 400 p.s.i.g., 9.0, cause separation said '' App. 36-37 (emphasis added). 5 phrase "at 9.0'' prosecution. At minimum, previous (the patent) parties disagree low-end claim.2 6 diameters assumed Angstroms, nearly 500 learn until begun commercial use process. eventually learned Warner-Jenkinson's and, 1991, infringement. 7 trial approached, conceded relied objection jury. invalid intentionally infringed, awarded only 20% damages sought Davis. denied post-trial motions, prohibiting practicing below p.s.i.g. 9.01 pH. A fractured affirmed. 1512 (C.A.Fed.1995). 8 majority held exist touchstone differences 1521-1522. 1525. 9 were separate dissents, commanding total 12 judges. Four five dissenting judges viewed improper expansion scope, contrary defines gives monopoly. 1537-1538 (Plager, dissenting). fifth dissenter, late Judge Nies, able prohibition enlarging "overall.'' 1574 (Nies, she explained it, " [t]he "scope' courts do substitution elements.'' Ibid. All dissenters, much narrowed whole court. 1540-1542 dissenting); id., 1579 10 granted certiorari, 516 ____, 116 1014, 134 95 (1996), now reverse remand. II 11 we considered chemical composition welding differed element. U.S., 610, 857. substituted fall "question emerges [of other] substance make inapplicable; conversely, insubstantial court's invocation justified.'' equivalents: "What constitutes equivalency determined case. Equivalence, law, prisoner formula absolute vacuum. require complete identity every respect. determining things equal same thing token, most purposes sometimes Consideration given perform. An factor was.'' 13 Considering factors, difference substitute "colorable only,'' concluded proper. 612, 858. survive seq., several Act. particular, argues: §112; process-designed mistakes drafting like-and avoids limitations §§251-252; process; (4) section regarding claiming, majority.3 reissue, PTO. Compare, §112 ("The specification shall pointing distinctly claiming applicant regards his invention'') Consolidated 1870, ch. 230, §26, 16 Stat. 198, 201 "shall point part, improvement, combination he discovery''). Such minor provisions Acts bearing reached provide basis our overruling it. already pre-1952 precedent survived passage See Aro Convertible Top Replacement 365 336, 342, 81 599, 602-603, 592 (1961) (new "left intact entire body direct infringement''). reach here.4 implied congressional negation turns Section 112, ¶6, states: 17 "An expressed step performing specified without recital structure, material, acts support thereof, construed cover corresponding thereof. —(Emphasis added.) 18 Thus, provision, can describe served, item (e.g., "a connecting Part B,'' two-penny nail''). Congress ¶6 "do "conveniently functional exact novelty,''' (1946) (citation omitted). re Donaldson 1189, 1194 (C.A.Fed.1994) (Congress predecessor Halliburton); Fuetterer, C.C.P.A. 1453, 319 F.2d 259, 264, (1963) (same); also, D. Chisum, Patents §8.04[2], 63-64 (1996) (discussing 1954 commentary then-Chief Examiner P.J. Federico). allows proviso restrictive role, narrowing elements. recognized type 608-609, silent where 19 Because problem, action overread negative implications. easily responded decision. not. Absent something compelling dubious inference offered petitioner, lengthy strongly supports adherence refusal find legislate existence chooses. various policy sides best addressed Congress, B 20 do, share concern dissenters taken life own, unbounded denying broadly, definitional public-notice requirement. Nies identified avoiding conflict: 21 [A]distinction drawn esoteric component metes bounds 22 ..... 23 "Where here, "equivalents' sobriquet "Doctrine Equivalents' refers 24 25 "This view device "equivalent' overall reconciles position concurrent statements "the right enlarge allowed Office.' -[Citations omitted.] F.3d, 1573-1574 dissenting) original). 26 concur apt reconciliation precedent. Each ensure play effectively eliminate entirety. just described, confident themselves. III 27 Understandably reluctant assume overrule alternative favor restricted feels address turn. 28 argues never purported non-literal variously estoppel'' "file wrapper estoppel.'' Bayer Aktiengesellschaft Duphar Int'l Research B.V., 738 1237, 1238 (C.A.Fed.1984). According prosecution, regardless surrender, precludes Because, form Any undermine public's clear embodied file. 29 readily agree dispose legal cases cited dissent below, tied amendments otherwise concern-such obviousness-that arguably rendered unpatentable. Exhibit Supply Ace Corp., Chief Stone distinguished limiting original "very different'' situation applicant, meet Office, based references adopted broader one'' previously used. 315 126, 136, 513, 518, 86 736 (1942) Similarly, Keystone Driller Northwest Engineering 294 42, 55 262, 79 747 (1935), initial "rejected art,'' 48, 265, allegedly infringing outside revised formed rejection 264-265.5 30 telling probed reasoning Office's insistence instance, demanded written patentable all-typically encompassed art. But, informs us, language. Brief Amicus Curiae 22-23 (counsel appearing brief). And been requesting changes or, indeed, expectation many range extremely upset basic assumptions doing so. Our consistently amended reasons, rigid rule invoking change.6 31 due revealed objection, claim. While unclear. serve nothing about 6.0. while 6.0, mere inclusion, became necessarily Hubbell States, 179 77, 82, 24, 26, 45 (1900) (""[A]ll [specified elements] regarded material,''' though remains open ""question omitted supplied instrumentality''' omitted)). introduce element.7 32 left like bar, seems tantamount absence similarly Mindful indeed function, think place burden then sufficient overcome bar amendment. explanation established, patentability circumstances, presumption rebuttal appropriate deference providing notice, ensuring proffered Applied fashion, places reasonable insulates feared 33 addition limit, Whether fact exists, simply adequately developed, cannot say. On remand, portion opportunity 34 next good result. 32. Relying problem "unscrupulous copyist'' "piracy,'' 607, 855-856, To sure, prevention copying piracy benefits That produces benefits, mean obtained. Elsewhere neutral terms. reflects 717 (1854), growing legally term extends patented, however proportions varied.'' involves infringes takes form-half express, half implied-of "X 36 Union Paper-Bag Machine Murphy, 97 120, 125, 935 (1878), relied, offers intent-neutral 37 [T]he thing, sense itself; devices work way, accomplish result, they same, differ name, form, shape.'' 38 If predicate notion equivalent, treating differently Application therefore, akin neither 39 points seeming reliance independent experimentation supporting defense suggesting infringer's behavior, copying, designing around experimentation, indirectly substantiality Circuit, person aiming copy imagined least marginally avoidance, intentional raises inference-rebuttable development-of differences, differences. desired. wonders how ever copyist making risk action, incremental innovator yet seeking capture permissible advance. 40 another available divergence generally principles instances referred research experiments, discussing compound infringer. need reflect knowledge-or lack thereof-of possessed presumably substitutes factors noted Independent always likely knowledge. 41 suggested them. predecessors C 42 Finally, proposes milder version issued, extend after-arising 43 noted, nature practitioner's sake, tells fact-finder similarities Much perspective hypothetical "reasonable person'' content concepts "negligent'' practitioner provides to, on, concept "equivalence.'' rejecting severe proposition known, actually IV 44 opinions respondents, amici devote considerable attention However, despite judge, makes passing issue. 22, ("If hold Markman Westview Instruments, Inc., 95-26, 1996 WL 12585 (argued Jan. 1996), juries construe uniform definition protected monopoly, seem cross-purposes say expand resort "equivalents'''); Reply (whether depends views equivalents). comments inconsistency understood. whether, of, resolved presented, take up. ample holding. See, 125 ("in be, look machines light office perform another, performs obtain result''); How., 344 (" [It] jury'' kind, effected employment [the patentee's] mode operation substance''). Nothing recent decision necessitates Circuit. Indeed, cites favor, seminal 517 _________, 1384, 1392-1393, 577 (1996). Whether, squarely presented conclusion today.8 V 46 debate determined. Both spend test-focusing served serves obtained element-is method equivalence, better. agreement that, triple analyzing mechanical devices, often poor products processes. hand, little additional guidance might render "insubstantial.'' 47 focus vigilance completely reduce considerably imprecision whatever analysis played inform matches With backdrop, going micro-managing word-choice equivalence. expect determinations, leave refinement expertise. VI 48 Today adhere Prosecution patentholder today, remand opinion. 49 ordered. whom KENNEDY joins, concurring. 51 I join write separately add cautionary note rebuttable announces others completed. presumption, woodenly, unfairly discount expectations who incentive insist modifications memorialized file made. Years fact, difficult evidentiary presumption. sensitive noting flexible deciding ask change'' Ante, 6. 52 determine-bearing mind rules game-whether not, established. syllabus prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. pH, power (exponent) Hydrogen, measure acidity alkalinity. 7.0 neutral; acidic; alkaline. measurement logarithmic scale, number representing ten-fold acidity, practical significance depend context. Pure water, example, 7.0, whereas carbonated water acidic 3.0, concentrated hydrochloric acid approaching 0.0. end milk magnesia 10.0, household ammonia 11.9. Encyclopedia Americana 844 (Int'l ed.1990). contends created "foaming'' problems plant level. 4, 5, 37, 28. counters successfully tested low 2.2 effect foaming, selected. 34, 34. decided over vigorous dissent. dissent, Black raised four 613-614, 858-859 (doctrine "distinctly claim'' invention); 614-615, 859-860 (patent mistakes); 615, 859, (duty lies examine conform them invention; appeal determinations result). 1950. 100 approved (1854). unsuccessfully argued 1836 "particularly "specify point' invention,'' more. 347 (Campbell, evolution practice "central'' (describing core invention) "peripheral'' outer boundaries treat aberration abandon 43-45. disagree. predates origin, merely narrower inventions crowded arts. Also, recognition "pioneer'' patents suggests abandonment overstated. field negate availability vel non. Smith Magic City Kennel Club, 282 784, 788, 291, 293, 75 707 (1931) (estoppel "claim to'' another); Computing Scale America Automatic 204 618-620, 307, 311-312, 645 (1907) (initial patents); 83, 26-27, (patentee estopped excluding novelty Sutter Robinson, 119 530, 541, 376, 381-382, 492 (1886) where, "was state device's] structural plan old invention''); cf. Graham John Deere Kansas City, 383 33, 684, 701-702, 545 (1966) (noting, validity determination, "claims issuance distinguishing sustained eliminated patent''). brighter adopting rule. especially true place. game very well subvert balances strike issuing expired affected suggest review correctness rightly notes, concerns denial revisited action. 789-790, 293-294. What explore (right wrong) manner avoided objection. unreviewability black-box verdicts, offer guidance, mandate. district obliged grant partial summary judgment. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56; Celotex Corp. Catrett, 477 317, 322-323, 106 2548, 2552-2553, 265 (1986). reluctance unfamiliarity remedy problem. Of course, either pretrial motion close verdict. 50. theory entirely resolve. verdict and/or interrogatories useful facilitating review, uniformity, possibly postverdict judgments law. 49; implement procedural improvements promote certainty, consistency, reviewability

Classification Label: 7