Federal Circuit Rejects Invitation to Extend Scope of Hypothetical Claim Beyond Accused Product for Doctrine of Equivalents Analysis

Author: Ashley M. Winkler
Editor: Jeff T. Watson

In Intendis GmbH v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA, No. 15-1902 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determinations that Intendis’s asserted claims were valid and infringed.

Glenmark appealed the district court’s finding that under the doctrine of equivalents, Glenmark’s accused product infringed Intendis’s asserted claims. The district court applied the function-way-result test and found that components of Glenmark’s product functioned equivalently to components in the asserted claims. Finding no error, the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Glenmark argued that the doctrine of equivalents was precluded because the applied scope of equivalency impermissibly captured prior art. Applying hypothetical claim analysis, the district court rejected Glenmark’s proposed hypothetical claim, which included all potential functional equivalents, and instead, adopted a hypothetical claim that extended the actual claim to literally recite only Glenmark’s accused product. The Federal Circuit found no error with the district court’s analysis.

Glenmark also argued that prosecution history estoppel applied to bar the doctrine of equivalents. The Court found that Applicants’ statements did not clearly and unmistakably disavow claim scope to distinguish prior art and the amendment at issue was not a narrowing amendment made to obtain the patent. Rather, the prosecution history merely included “clarifying” statements and amendments that did not preclude Glenmark’s product. Finding no error, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that prosecution history estoppel does not apply.


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Tagged ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: