CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854
AEON Law logo full color transparent

Equivalent Inventions Still Violate Patent Law

Federal Circuit
Finds that car parts company
Infringed patent rights

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the foreseeability of a possible equivalent invention does not prevent a patent owner from suing for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

Defendant ARB Corporation Ltd. appealed from a district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of US Patent No. 5,591,098 to Ring & Pinion Service, Inc.

The ‘098 patent claims an improved automobile locking differential (a mechanism that allows wheels to rotate at different speeds relative to each other).

Ring & Pinion sought a declaratory judgment that its Ziplocker product did not infringe the ‘098 patent. After claim construction, both parties moved for summary judgment.

The parties agreed that the Ziplocker product met every limitation of claim 1 of the ‘098 patent except the “cylinder means formed in…” limitation, but that the Ziplocker device included an equivalent cylinder.

The parties agreed that the case turned on a single issue: whether an equivalent is barred under the doctrine of equivalents because it was foreseeable at the time of the patent application.

The district court then held that while foreseeability did not preclude the application of the doctrine of equivalents, a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents would vitiate the “cylinder means formed in…” limitation. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment of non-infringement to Ring & Pinion.

The Federal Circuit held that there is no foreseeability limitation on the application of the doctrine of equivalents, and that interchangeability weighs in favor of finding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

The court noted that for literal infringement an accused structure must perform the identical function recited in the claim. Under the doctrine of equivalents, an accused structure must perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way with substantially the same results.

The Circuit Court thus reversed the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment to ARB.

Related Articles

Tennessee Passes Law Against AI Voice Copies

The state of Tennessee has passed a law against the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to copy a person’s voice. The law, signed on March ...
Read More

Bill Proposes IP Protection for Golf Courses

Congressmen Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) have introduced the Bolstering Intellectual Rights against Digital Infringement Enhancement (a.k.a. the BIRDIE Act), which proposes amending ...
Read More

Patent and Trademark Offices Publish Study on NFT IP Issues

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Copyright Office have published the results of their joint study on non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and intellectual property (IP). ...
Read More

Let's work together.

Contact us to set up a meeting with an attorney or team member.

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.



Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices



Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games



Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products



Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design