Court Opinion

ID: 9493661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:14:28.10483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:57.167578
License: Public Domain

PLAGER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in and join the opinion and judgment of the court. It is a second-best solution to an unsatisfactory situation. Under our preexisting law, a count for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents became a routine part of a patent infringement suit. The game was to convince the trier of fact, typically a jury, that even if an accused product1 does not infringe the claims as written, the claimed invention and the accused product have only “insubstantial differences,” a wonderfully indeterminate phrase, lending itself to making eyery decision under the doctrine an individualistic choice, if not simply a flip of the coin. For the rationale behind the “insubstantial differences” rubric, see Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., 62 F.3d 1512, 1516-18, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1641, 1644-45 (Fed.Cir.1995), rev’d and remanded, 520 U.S. 17, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865 (1997).
*592In an attempt to make the phrase “insubstantial differences” less indeterminate, we have continued to resort to the old “function-way-result” formulation, indicating that in appropriate cases — whatever that might mean — the answer could be found through those lenses. See, e.g., Hill-Rom Co. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 209 F.3d 1387, 1343, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1437, 1442 (Fed.Cir.2000); Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Int’l Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1371, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1814, 1820-21 (Fed.Cir.2000); Overhead Door Corp. v. Chamberlain Group, Inc., 194 F.3d 1261, 1270, 52 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321, 1327 (Fed.Cir.1999); Augustine Medical, Inc. v. Gaymar Indus., Inc., 181 F.3d 1291, 1304, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1900, 1909 (Fed.Cir.1999); Vehicular Tech. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int’l, Inc., 141 F.3d 1084, 1089-90, 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1257, 1261 (Fed.Cir.1998); Dawn Equip. Co. v. Kentucky Farms Inc., 140 F.3d 1009, 1015-16, 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1109, 1113 (Fed.Cir.1998). Though “function” and “result” are in many cases reasonably straightforward, the “way” of an accused product compared to that of the claimed invention has proved to be no more precise a criterion in its application than “insubstantial differences,” for which it was supposed to be a useful surrogate. See, e.g., Overhead Door, 194 F.3d at 1270, 52 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1327.
Worse yet, whether the trier of fact was judge or jury, the decision about infringement under the doctrine of equivalents does not end with the trial. Given the indeterminate nature of the test, it is not difficult for the losing party to make a plausible argument on appeal that there was “clear error” or that “no reasonable jury could have thought such a thing,” as the case may be. Given the indeterminate nature of the test, this court has shown little reluctance to review these decisions. See, e.g., Hill-Rom, 209 F.3d at 1343, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1442; Dawn Equip., 140 F.3d at 1015-17, 46 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1113-15. The net effect has been that all too often there is no way to know whether a particular product infringes under the doctrine until a panel of this court says so; the rule of analysis gives little real guidance, and equally little predictability.
In today’s rulings the court attempts to limit some of the indeterminacy of the doctrine with a set of bright-line rules, trading off areas of uncertainty for a degree of rigidity. Unfortunately, this attempt at injecting certainty into the doctrine contains the potential for unintended consequences, consequences that may do nothing but exacerbate the problem.
What will be the response of the patent bar to the new rules? Past practice has been to claim broadly in the initial application for a patent, and then negotiate with the United States Patent and Trademark Office through one or more rejections until arriving at a mutually acceptable set of claims. Under the new rules of engagement, that process will create full prosecution history estoppel regarding every limitation that is amended for patentability purposes, a term now broadly defined.
Patent counsels may decide that past practice gives up too much under the new rules, and instead may start claiming narrowly with the hope of avoiding rejections and consequent amendments. Literal infringement will become harder to prove because claims will be drafted more narrowly and with greater specificity. That itself may be to the good, since much of current patent litigation involves claim construction issues resulting from the vague, sometimes almost incomprehensible, manner in which claims have been drafted.
An unintended consequence, however, may be that patent litigation will lean ever more heavily on the doctrine of equivalents, especially in those cases in which the patent application, containing narrowly drawn claims, was approved without any amendment in the area that affects the accused product. The patentee may have little choice but to insist on enforcement under the doctrine of equivalents, if the patent is to be enforced at all. Since *593today’s decision does not change the basic rule of analysis for infringement claims under the doctrine of equivalents, the outcome in those cases will continue to be tested under the pre-existing “insubstantial differences” and its surrogate “function-way-result,” with all the game-playing those indeterminate phrases provide.
In time then, the supposed benefits of the doctrinal improvements contained in today’s decision may prove illusory.
That is why I consider it a second-best solution. A better solution would be to declare the doctrine of equivalents — a judge-made rule in the first place — to have its roots firmly in equity, and to acknowledge that when and in what circumstances it applies is a question of equitable law, a question for which judges bear responsibility. We have admitted to these roots in a number of cases. See Texas Instruments Inc. v. USITC, 988 F.2d 1165, 1173, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1018, 1024 (Fed.Cir.1993) (“the doctrine of equivalents has been ‘judicially devised to do equity ’ ” (quoting Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal, Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 870, 228 U.S.P.Q. 90, 96 (Fed.Cir.1985)) (emphasis added)); Valmont Indus., Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1043 n. 1, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1451, 1454 n. 1 (Fed.Cir.1993) (“the doctrine ‘is designed to do equity ’ ” (quoting Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 822 F.2d 1528, 1532, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321, 1324 (Fed.Cir.1987)) (emphasis added)); Charles Greiner & Co. v. Mari-Med Mfg., Inc., 962 F.2d 1031, 1036, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1526, 1529 (Fed.Cir.1992) (“careful confinement of the doctrine of equivalents to its proper equitable role ... promotes certainty and clarity in determining the scope of patent rights” (emphasis added)); London v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 946 F.2d 1534, 1538, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1456, 1458 (Fed.Cir.1991) (“this eqidtable doctrine evolved from a balancing of competing policies” (emphasis added)).
Were this court to openly acknowledge that the doctrine of equivalents can only be legitimated by its equitable roots and should be treated as an equitable doctrine, important consequences would flow. Trial courts, sitting as courts of equity, would be responsible for deciding whether the doctrine of equivalents should be applied, not unlike the practice regarding the doctrine of inequitable conduct. On appeal to this court, we would review a trial court’s determination under the deferential standard of abuse of discretion.
The test the trial courts would apply would be crafted to blend both objective and subjective factors. The differences between the claimed invention and the accused product would necessarily remain of relevance; and in addition, traditional equitable considerations would focus on matters such as the conduct of the accused product’s sponsors, specifically, the considerations pronounced in the Supreme Court’s seminal opinion in Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 607-08, 70 S.Ct. 854, 94 L.Ed. 1097, 85 U.S.P.Q. 328, 330 (1950):
[Cjourts have also recognized that to permit imitation of a patented invention which does not copy every literal detail would be to convert the protection of the patent grant into a hollow and useless thing. Such a limitation would leave room for — indeed encourage — the unscrupulous copyist to make unimportant and insubstantial changes and substitutions in the patent which, though adding nothing, would be enough to take the copied matter outside the claim, and hence outside the reach of law....
... The essence of the doctrine [of equivalents] is that one may not practice a fraud on a patent. Originating almost a century ago in the case of Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 330, 14 L.Ed. 717, it has been consistently applied by this Court and the lower federal courts, and continues today ready and available for utilization when the proper circumstances for its application arise.
It is true that “fraud” and “unscrupulous” conduct are not terms of precision, *594yet they are terms with which judges are familiar. More importantly, they point to the underlying reason for the doctrine; as the Court said, the essence of the doctrine is fraud. Notions of fairness and equity are concerns which over the centuries have permitted courts to reach beyond the fixed scope of legal rights in “proper circumstances,” to use the Court’s phrase. What those circumstances are in regard to patent rights this court over time could determine, and in time develop a refined body of law that emphasizes the exceptional nature of relief under the doctrine. In time, there would be a set of known factors that could be applied predictably, thus giving a degree of decisional certainty to the doctrine, all the while retaining flexibility in the process to deal with new situations— the hallmark of equitable adjudication.
By contrast, the notion of “insubstantial differences” between a particular claim and a particular product, viewed as the governing principle, can never be anything other than an ad hoc judgment, dependent on the eye of the beholder in the individual case. Though we talk about considering factors such as the role of copying, interchangeability of elements, and so on, the reality is that, as our cases since Hilton Davis demonstrate, the decision on equivalents remains essentially a subjective call, with repetition of verbal formulae but without transferability from case to case of practical guidance. This to me is the antithesis of the rule of law.
I have previously written at length on this problem and on my suggested approach to its management, see Hilton Davis, 62 F.3d at 1536, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1661 (Plager, J., dissenting, joined by Archer, C.J., and Rich and Lourie, JJ.), and will not repeat all that was said there. In this court’s earlier attempt to address the difficulties in our equivalents doctrine, see Hilton Davis, 62 F.3d 1512, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1641, passim, the court majority elevated the notion of insubstantial differences to the controlling criterion, on the expressed belief that it had some abstract objectivity. Experience has now shown that belief to have been more hope than reality. In focusing on the mechanistic idea of insubstantial differences, the court failed to grapple with the basic problem of uncertainty in the law. Thus, five short years later, we are again grappling with the problem. This is a self-inflicted wound.
It would be easy now to blame the Supreme Court for the mess we are in, since the Court, in response to our Hilton Davis decision, has opined on the matter. See Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865 (1997). However, I do not believe that the Supreme Court wishes to stand in the way of a sensible solution. For one, the Court expressly declined to consider whether the application of the doctrine of equivalents is a task for the judge or jury. Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 38-39, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1875. That infringement under the doctrine is a fact issue is of no moment; equity courts deal with facts all the time. In addition, a Supreme Court that did not balk at making the most critical aspect of infringement law — claim construction' — a matter for judges alone, see Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577, 38 U.S.P.Q.2d 1461 (1996), may, when pressed, find it appropriate to acknowledge the equitable nature of the doctrine of equivalents and the reasons why judges have a comparative advantage in equitable adjudication.
The Supreme Court in its Wamer-Jen-kinson opinion did opine that “intent plays no role in the application of the doctrine of equivalents.” Warner-Jenkinson, 520 at 36, 520 U.S. 17, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1874. That suggests that at least some of the considerations involved in traditional equitable analysis would not be appropriate. However, the Court’s statement in that regard was preceded by a reference to Graver *595Tank and the fact that, while Graver Tank leaves room for the inclusion of intent-based elements in the doctrine, it did not require them. From this, the Court opined that the “better view” was to exclude intent-based considerations. Today, the Court might well conclude that, since the so-called “objective” approach has proven unworkable, a return to the equitable analysis approach would be the “better view.” Particularly would this be so if this court led the way, since in its Wamer-Jenkinson decision the Supreme Court was doing little more than echoing what we had said on the subject of intent in our Hilton Davis opinion.
We are the court primarily responsible for the state of patent law, and the Supreme Court has pronounced it our duty to “best implement procedural improvements to promote certainty, consistency, and re-viewability to this area of the law.” Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 39 n. 8, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1876 n. 8. It is time for us to “think outside the box,” and restore the doctrine of equivalents to its original equitable function and purpose, thus providing a judicial process that lends itself to making the doctrine both determinate and predictable.
Those who are wedded to the existing regimen can no doubt find all sorts of objections to this proposed approach. I cannot say that the approach I advocate is a panacea for all that ails the equivalents practice. I can say that what we have does not work very well, and, as we did in Markman, it is time to try something else, something that has substantial jurisprudential legitimacy and holds out some promise for improvement. Until such time as this court is of a mind to seek and design a long-term solution to the equivalents problem, however, I have little choice but to join in even this limited effort to cabin what is otherwise, and I fear remains, a doctrine short on predictable results, and short on the achievement of equity to which it owes its existence.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I fully join the majority opinion. However, I write separately to respond to comments and concerns of supporters of the flexible bar rule.
It has been stated by a dissenter that most of the members of the majority have authored opinions supporting a flexible bar. I am one of them. My obligation is to follow precedent, and it is correct that our court has had precedent for a flexible bar, albeit not necessarily consistent precedent. I therefore followed what seemed to be the strongest line of precedent at that time. See, e.g., Sextant, 172 F.3d 817, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865; Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1033 (Fed.Cir.1999); Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc., 160 F.3d 1350, 48 U.S.P.Q.2d 1674 (Fed.Cir.1998); Laitram Corp. v. Morehouse Indus., Inc., 143 F.3d 1456, 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1609 (Fed.Cir.1998); Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961 (Fed.Cir.1997). However, in light of experience, and recognizing the Congressional requirement for precision in claims, 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, I am persuaded that when we have the opportunity en banc to depart from an unworkable rule by holding patent applicants to their actions in the PTO, we should do so. Adoption of a firmer rale today is in the best interest of the patent system.
Our holding does not violate the Supreme Court’s guidance in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chern. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997). The key issue decided by the Court in Wamer-Jenkinson relating to prosecution history estoppel was whether the reasons for a claim amendment are relevant in determining whether prosecution history estoppel should be applied. Id. at 30, 117 S.Ct. 1040. The Court held that the reason for an amendment is relevant, as amendments made for substantial reasons relating to patentability lead to an estoppel. While the Court referred to the avoidance of prior art as a principal reason *596for an amendment relating to patentability, it did not limit the application of prosecution history estoppel to claims that were amended for prior art reasons. Id. at 30-31, 117 S.Ct. 1040. Hence, this court, in its present decision, has refined the scope of “a substantial reason related to patenta-bility” to include any reason relating to a statutory requirement for patentability. In other words, if a claim was not allowable for statutory reasons without an amendment, then the amendment was presumptively made for a reason relating to patentability. Such an amendment may relate either to prior art or to various requirements under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.
The Supreme Court has not addressed what scope of equivalents remains when a claim has been clearly amended for patent-ability reasons. The closest the Court came to doing so was in Wamer-Jenkin-son, where it created the presumption that an amendment was made for a reason relating to patentability when it is unclear why that amendment was made. The Court then stated: “In those circumstances, prosecution history estoppel would bar the application of the doctrine of equivalents as to that element.” Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 33, 117 S.Ct. 1040; see Sextant Avionique, S.A. v. Analog Devices, Inc., 172 F.3d 817, 831, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865, 1874-75 (Fed.Cir.1999) (explaining that this language only applies when the reason for an amendment is unknown). It did not otherwise render any holding concerning the scope of equivalents that remains when a claim has clearly been amended for patentability reasons. Thus, this en banc court is free to do so today. In fact, today we merely extend the Supreme Court’s complete bar against the application of the doctrine of equivalents, which applies when it is unclear why an amendment was made and the patentee fails to rebut the presumption that an amendment was made for reasons relating to patentability, to cases in which the pat-entee clearly amended a claim for patenta-bility reasons.
It has been said that there is no hard evidence showing that the so-called “flexible” bar impairs predictability. While it is true that empirical data may not be available, powerful evidence may be garnered from the experience of this court, which monthly reviews appeals in which infringement is asserted under the doctrine of equivalents even though the accused product is clearly not within the literal scope of the asserted claims. Many of these appeals involve prosecution histories in which amendments for patentability reasons have been made. Yet, equivalence is argued in the hope that one panel might find equivalence where another would not. That surely is persuasive evidence that the current flexible bar is not working. Our court was created with the opportunity and mandate to observe such problems in the law and to act upon a possible solution. See Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 39 n. 8, 40, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1875 n. 8, 1876 (“We expect that the Federal Circuit will refine the formulation of the test for equivalence in the orderly course of case-by-case determinations, and we leave such refinement to that court’s sound judgment in this area of its special expertise.”). That is why we have been given exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a).
It has been suggested that there are settled expectations in the bar and innovation community regarding the present rule. The only settled expectation currently existing is the expectation that clever attorneys can argue infringement outside the scope of the claims all the way through this court of appeals. Such a settled expectation should become unsettled. Surely, when prosecuting a patent, patent practitioners have no settled expectations of being able to assert the doctrine of equivalents. Any patent attorney who fails to claim all that his inventor has invented, and that is patentable, is ill-advised to settle for a narrower claim than he considers justified on the assumption *597that he can rely on the doctrine of equivalents for broader coverage. Such reliance is a highly risky prospect given that the patent statute requires precise claims. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2. When a patent applicant is faced with a rejection, or expects a rejection, he (or she) is master of his claims. He can stand his ground and appeal, or amend the claims. If the latter course of action is chosen, such conduct, which is known to the world, should bind the applicant. The fact that the applicant may have to appeal an unjustified rejection, incurring loss of time and expense, does not mean that we should refrain from adding clarity to the meaning of claims by holding patent applicants to them actions in the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).
Additionally, the PTO does not make “basic assumptions” relating to a range of equivalents to be allowed. See Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 32, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1872 (“[Ilf the PTO has been requesting changes in claim language without the intent to limit equivalents ... we should be extremely reluctant to upset the basic assumptions of the PTO without substantial reason for doing so.”). The PTO examines claims in light of the disclosure of the patent application and against the prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 131 (1994) (“Examination of application”); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure §§ 701, 702 (7th ed. 2000) (“The main conditions precedent to the grant of a patent to an applicant are set forth in 35 U.S.C. [§§ ] 101, 102 and 103.... [T]he examiner should review the contents of [a new] application to determine if the application meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. [§ ] 111(a) [ (setting forth the basic requirements for a patent application) ].”). It does not issue patents with any expectations regarding equivalents.
It is said that stare decisis compels us to stay the course with the old rule. I thought the same regarding Zurko. See Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 170-72, 119 S.Ct. 1816, 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (Relinquish C.J., dissenting). However, the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, believed that decades of practice should be overturned in order to bring our standard of judicial review of findings of fact made by the PTQ, into line with the standard of review applied to other agency decisions. Id. at 152, 119 S.Ct. 1816. Similarly, a majority of this court believes that important policy considerations relating to achieving the certainty contemplated by Congress justifies departing from an older unworkable rule.
Finally, one of the dissenters fears that today’s ruling provides would-be copiers with a free pass to appropriate the essence of an invention and yet escape infringement. That is theoretically true. In the future, a competitor may more closely approach the limits of the claims in a patent in which a narrowing amendment has been made without fear of liability. Occasional injustices may occur. However, I believe that such occasional injustices will be greatly outnumbered by competitors who will be able to introduce innovative products outside the scope of claims without fear of unjustified, protracted, and expensive litigation. In today’s world, the specter of unpredictable equivalence claims haunts too many business decisions, while the overwhelming majority of equivalence claims ultimately fail. It is more than justified to lessen this fear and hold patent applicants to the consequences of their public prosecution decisions. The rule we announce today should encourage innovation, lessen uncertainty, and diminish the volume of unnecessary litigation, while providing patentees with protection commensurate with the disclosed and allowed scope of their inventions.
As for the biotechnology example hypothesized by one of the dissenters, I believe the concern is largely theoretical. The first inventors in a field are only entitled to claim what they can describe and enable, and I am confident that competent patent attorneys can readily craft their claims to cover that subject matter so *598that estoppel can be avoided. Moreover, subsequent inventors will be better able to find and develop improved products without fear of lawsuits. Predictability will be enhanced.
The fact is that, even under our past rule of flexible bar, no court has rendered a decision holding infringement only under the doctrine of equivalents by an accused gene or protein. To the extent that a competitor has been deterred from developing a new compound for fear that it will be held to be an infringer under an equivalence theory, I believe that our new rule will provide a clear net gain for innovation and the public. They will benefit from the greater certainty that new compounds not within the scope of granted claims can be developed without fear of protracted litigation.
For these reasons, and for others aptly expressed by the majority opinion, I join the majority opinion.

. I use the broad term “product” to include any process, device, etc.