Court Opinion

ID: 9477647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:28:05.319211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:58.738123
License: Public Domain

DAVIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result, concurring in part, and additional views.
I agree with the result and join all of Judge Newman’s opinion except the last portion, headed “The Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents.” My view is that both the original opinion in this case (which I joined) and the opinion on rehearing (the greater part of which I have joined) reflect princi-comparable to (though distinct from) the reverse doctrine of equivalents. The “current case solely involves claims governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 If 6, which provides that a means-plus-function claim “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof” (emphasis added). There is a symbiosis between § 112 “equivalents” and doctrine of equivalents-both spring from the same roots and very often take account of the same factors and considerations. While stressing the distinctiveness each of the separate doctrines, our opin-in Palumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 975 n. 4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n. 4 (Fed. Cir.1985), declared that “Graver Tank con-of equivalents are relevant in any ‘equivalents’ determination” under § 112, “the underlying principles of equiva-in Graver Tank could be used in a 112 literal infringement analysis.” See Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 553 F.2d 69, 213 Ct.Cl. 395, 193 USPQ 449 (1977).
Because of this close connection, I have considered it proper to apply here an analogue or parallel of the reverse doctrine of ;! equivalents-though not that doctrine in and of itself. Whether or not there was literal infringement of the means-plus-func-1 tion claims, Judge Newman is right that “the equivalency of each changed means is evaluated in the context of the accused device as a whole” (J. Newman’s opinion at 4); “though every function of the claimed combination was performed in the accused devices, the structures performing those functions were not equivalents of the structures disclosed in the patent” (emphasis in original) (id. at 4-5); and “[tjaken together these accumulated differences [between the invention described in the patent and the accused device] distinguish the accused calculators from that contemplated in the ’921 patent and transcend a fair range of equivalents of the ’921 invention.” Texas Instruments v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 805 F.2d 1558, 1570, 231 USPQ 833, 841 (Fed.Cir.1986).