The Federal Circuit held that, if there was no literal infringement of the means-plus-function claim, then infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was also precluded as a matter of law unless the "equivalent" was an after-developed technology. The simplicity of this statement belies the debate engendered by Chiuminatta.
In Kraft Foods Inc. v. International Trading Co., the Federal Circuit clears up one aspect of the debate. Kraft involved a patent entitled "Food Package Having a Compartmentalized Rigid Base Tray." The court construed the "protecting back panel" language of the claim to require that the back panel be "relatively rigid." Unfortunately for the patentee, the accused infringer used thin, flexible (i.e., not relatively rigid) polypropylene-laminated paper labels.
Undeterred, the patentee argued for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The District Court read Chiuminatta as precluding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents "whenever the accused variation of the patented invention involves pre-existing technology." The Federal Circuit, however, disagreed with the District Court's broad reading of Chiuminatta, and explained that the reasoning and holding of the case only apply to means-plus-function style claims. The court noted that "[w]here the patentee does not use the means-plus-function format, the resolution of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents would not allow the patentee 'two bites of the apple.'"
The paper labels used by the accused infringer existed prior to the patent. The Federal Circuit held that a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was not foreclosed simply because the paper labels were pre-existing technology. Based on the District Court's misapplication of Chiuminatta, the Federal Circuit remanded the case for consideration under the doctrine of equivalents.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
