Court Opinion

ID: 9492345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:39:01.218428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:15.765775
License: Public Domain

LOURIE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent both from the holding that an analysis of equivalent structure under § 112, ¶ 6, does not permit dissection of the structure corresponding to a recited means and from the conclusion that substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that the accused structure corresponding to the means was equivalent in this case.
If one is to determine whether the disclosed structure of a claimed means is equivalent to the corresponding structure of an accused device, I do not see how it is possible to do so without looking at what components the structures consist of, ie., by deconstructing or dissecting the structures. This is the only way to discern whether any significant difference in structural details exists between the claimed and accused structures. For example, in this case, structural equivalence is assessed by comparing the disclosed rotary means (the rod, bin, and the toothed gear) with the accused bin array (the rod, bin, and pins (cam followers)). The only relevant structural difference is between the toothed gear and the pins, and therefore it is the significance of this structural difference that must be assessed in determining whether the claimed means is equivalent to the bin array.
My difference with the majority essentially arises from my belief that it misunderstands the meaning of the word “structure.” The structure of a house consists of its components, ie., its floor, walls, roof, etc. The structure of an automobile consists of its components, ie., its chassis, motor, wheels, body, seats, etc. The structure of a chemical compound consists of the names of its component constituents or a pictorial representation thereof. The structure of an electronic circuit consist of transistors, resistors, capacitors, etc. Analyzing any of these structures for comparison with other structures requires analysis of their component parts. We need to focus on the real meaning of this statutory term if we are to serve our function of clarifying the law.
I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding of equivalence. The majority finds substantial evidence in the testimony of Dr. McCarthy to support the jury verdict of infringement, but I disagree, as did Judge Ellis, that this testimony was relevant to structural equivalency under § 112, ¶ 6. Instead, McCarthy’s testimony served only to prove that the claimed gear and the cam followers performed the same function' — viz., to turn the bin array to “provid[e] access to the storage library.” The portions of McCarthy’s testimony quoted by the majority make this point clear: “you can push on a pin as well as you can push on a gear tooth.... For this application, this is completely equivalent, pushing on these pins and pushing on these gear teeth, .. “take the gear off, put those pins on.... [The accused bin array structure] is completely equivalent....”1 These are all as*1278sertions of functional equivalence. McCarthy did not, presumably because he could not, testify that the smooth pins were structurally equivalent to the toothed gear of the claimed means. McCarthy’s bare assertion that the two structures were structurally equivalent does not make it so without substantial evidence to back up that assertion.
Proving whether a means-plus-function limitation is literally met by a structure in an accused device requires proof of (1) identicality of function between the accused structure and the claimed function, and (2) equivalency of the accused and disclosed structures. See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 934, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1737, 1739 (Fed.Cir.1987) (en banc) (“To determine whether a claim limitation is met literally, where expressed as a means for performing a stated function, the court must compare the accused structure with the disclosed structure, and must find equivalent structure as well as identity of the claimed function for that structure.”) (emphasis amended). The prongs of this two-part test are distinct, and reliance merely on functional identicality to prove literal infringement erroneously expands § 112, ¶ 6, beyond its intended limits. See id., 4 U.S.PQ.2d at 1739 (“section 112, paragraph 6, rules out the possibility that any and every means which performs the function specified in the claim literally satisfies that limitation.”) (emphasis deleted). McCarthy’s testimony concerning functional identicality did not serve the dual role of also proving structural equivalency. See Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1752, 1757 (Fed.Cir.1998) (noting that infringement under § 112, ¶ 6, was not necessarily established merely because the accused device admittedly performed the function of the claim; equivalency of structure must also be shown). Nor was McCarthy’s testimony that the toothed gear and the pins were interchangeable sufficient to prove structural equivalency. See id., 46 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1757.
In any event, this is not the sort of case in which expert testimony on structural equivalency is particularly helpful. The technology involved with respect to the structure of “rotary means” is relatively straightforward. As aptly summarized by Judge Ellis: “In the disclosed structure, the gear is a disc or cylinder with teeth that fit the teeth of another gear, thus enabling the disclosed gear to move in conjunction with the bin array, whereas the cam followers are smooth pins attached to the array by a stem, and turn independently from the array.” Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 14 F.Supp.2d 807, 814 (E.D.Va.1998). That is a structural analysis. Even at the appellate level, we are easily able to understand the structures that are at issue, and expert testimony is therefore not necessary on this issue. A reasonable jury, properly instructed to consider structural equivalency under § 112, ¶ 6, without exclusive focus on similarity of function, should have concluded that the disclosed and claimed structures were not structurally equivalent.2 I therefore think that judgment as a matter of law was properly granted, despite the *1279jury’s verdict of infringement, and therefore respectfully dissent in part.

. Even the majority's statement of Odetics's structural equivalence theory makes it clear *1278that Odetics tried the case on the basis that the toothed gear and the cam followers performed the same function:
Odetics's theory of equivalence was to point out the parallels between the claimed and accused structures, noting that rotation is accomplished in the '151 patent by exerting force against the teeth of the gear, thereby turning the bin about the rod, and that rotation is accomplished in the accused device by exerting force against the cam followers, also turning the bin about the rod. Thus Odetics argued to the jury that the structures were equivalent "rotary means" within the meaning of § 112, ¶ 6.
Maj. slip op. at 1269.

. Moreover, because cam followers are not an after-arising technology in relation to the patent, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is also precluded. See Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1311, 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1752, 1758 (Fed.Cir.1998).