Court Opinion

ID: 9477648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:28:05.321952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:58.739300
License: Public Domain

NIES, Circuit Judge,
dissenting from the denial of rehearing in banc.
Appellant and the amicus curiae in this case have expressed concern that the decisions which have been issued by the Texas Instruments panel alter the legal standard for determining infringement of a patent claim adopted by this court, in banc, in Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 4 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 1226, 1474, 99 L.Ed.2d 703 (1988).
It is now settled law that each element of a claim is material and essential and, in order to find infringement, the patent owner must show the presence of every element or its substantial equivalent in the accused device. Pennwalt Corp., 833 F.2d at 935, 4 USPQ2d at 1739-40. The Penn-walt court rejected the view of a minority of the court that only literal infringement required an element-by-element analysis and that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents could be found under an “invention as a whole” standard, even though an element of the claim was not present, at least by an equivalent, in the accused device or process. That debate has been ended.
The concerns expressed in the briefs here, I believe, are unwarranted under our precedent. A panel decision cannot over*1373turn any precedential ruling of the court, even of a prior panel, much less that of an in banc court. See, e.g., Capitol Elec., Inc. v. United States, 729 F.2d 743, 746 (Fed.Cir.1984) (only court sitting in banc can overrule an earlier panel decision). The Texas Instruments panel overruled nothing in Pennwalt and does not purport to do so. I support in banc, however, to clarify that, to the extent the original Texas Instruments opinion appeared to adopt a different standard on infringement from that adopted in Pennwalt, it cannot be so interpreted.
As subsequently explained in the order denying rehearing in Texas Instruments, the majority found no equivalency, either under 35 U.S.C. § 112 116 or under the doctrine of equivalents, between components of the accused devices and elements required by the claim. Thus, under the standard adopted in Pennwalt, infringement was not established. With respect to whether that finding of no equivalence was correct, I express no opinion. I would add, however, that this court has not, in its case law, set out general guidelines with respect to what constitutes an equivalent element either where section 112 para. 6 is involved or where it is not. It appears to be the intent of the Texas Instruments opinion to provide such guidance where numerous changes have been made from the disclosed embodiment of the invention and the elements of the claim are expressed in means-plus-function language. —
In Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 70 S.Ct. 854, 94 L.Ed. 1097 (1950), the Supreme Court gave /only these guidelines on determining equiv-aleíícy of a substituted ingredient , or component to one specified in a claim:
In its early development, the doctrine [of equivalents] was usually applied in cases involving devices where there was equivalence in mechanical components. Subsequently, however, the same principles were also applied to compositions, where there was equivalence between chemical ingredients. Today the doctrine is applied to mechanical or chemical equivalents in compositions or devices. See discussions and cases collected in 3 Walker on Patents (Deller’s ed. 1937) §§ 489-492; Ellis, Patent Claims (1949) §§ 59-60.
What constitutes equivalency must be determined against the context of the patent, the prior art, and the particular circumstances of the case. Equivalence, in the patent law, is not the prisoner of a formula and is not an absolute to be considered in a vacuum. It does not require complete identity for every purpose and in every respect. In determining equivalents, things equal to the same thing may not be equal to each other and, by the same token, things for most purposes different may sometimes be equivalents. Consideration must be given to the purpose for which an ingredient is used in a patent, the qualities it has when combined with the other ingredients, and the function which it is intended to perform. An important factor is whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was.
Id. at 609, 70 S.Ct. at 856-57.
Thus, in banc would also give the court the opportunity to amplify the standard for determining equivalency between components in an accused device and required elements of a claim.