Court Opinion

ID: 9477695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:28:55.790291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:59.858931
License: Public Domain

ARCHER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion, except for the section headed “Infringement of the Knop Patent.” With regard to infringement of the Knop patent, there is no need to consider literal infringement because, as the majority determines, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Gabriel antenna infringes the Knop patent under the doctrine of equivalents.
I would, nonetheless, add that the district court’s determination that Andrew had failed to carry its burden of proving literal infringement by preponderant evidence was not improper in my view, albeit probably unnecessary in view of its finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. I also consider unwarranted the majority’s criticism of the district court for finding the evidence on literal infringement to be in “equipoise” where, according to the district court, the critical “evidence of the opposing experts was directly contra-dietary and presented “no basis for accepting either proposition over the other.”