AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.

Intent is Not an Element of The Disclosure-Dedication Rule.

Mondaq Business Briefing

| September 30, 2004 | COPYRIGHT 2004 Mondaq Ltd. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan.  All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. (Hide copyright information)Copyright

In yet another visit with this now famous doctrine of equivalents case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the disclosure-dedication rule, which limits the application of the doctrine so as not to cover disclosed but unclaimed subject matter, has no intent element. The Court also found the level of disclosure necessary to dedicate an unclaimed feature to the public is different from (and less than) that necessary to support a proposed claim construction. Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indust. Inc., Case No. 03-1424 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2004) (Linn, J) (Toro III).

Toro is owner of the U.S. patent No. 4,694,528 (the `528 patent) directed to a convertible vacuum-blower. The asserted claim recites a "cover including means for increasing pressure." The "means for increasing pressure" allows the claimed device to perform both vacuum and blower functions. When the "means" is in place it increases pressure and, thus, blower power. With the "means" detached, air moves freely through the impeller housing, thereby increasing vacuum strength.

In the first appeal in this saga, Toro I, the Federal Circuit construed a claim term "including means for increasing pressure" as not implicating the means-plus-function language of s. 112, 6 and as being limited to a restriction ring permanently affixed to and included as part of the cover. White's accused vacuum-blower had a restriction ring that was separate from the cover. Based on its claim construction and the undisputed facts of the case, the Toro I panel reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment of literal infringement and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

After a second appeal and remand to the district court, the district court held that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was precluded because a two-piece cover and restriction ring assembly was disclosed in the patent specification but not claimed. In the present appeal, Toro argued that the disclosure dedication rule did not apply because Toro did not intentionally fail to claim the unclaimed subject matter. Relying on language from Johnson & Johnson, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court, holding intent is not an element of the disclosure-dedication rule.

Toro also argued that the disclosure of the unclaimed subject matter was insufficient to support a claim to the unclaimed feature under s. 112, [micro]1. On this issue, the Court reasoned that the level of disclosure ...

Related articles from newspapers, magazines, journals, and more
Federal Circuit and Supreme Court conflict on whether disclosed but unclaimed...
Magazine article from: IP Litigator Doody, Patrick A. Campbell, Christopher C. March 1, 2003 700+ words
...Although the so-called dedication rule existed for decades, the Federal Circuit previously had been reluctant to adopt a per se dedication rule precluding equivalents...amp; Johnston, the Federal Circuit per se precluded the...
Applying the disclosure-dedication rule to implicit disclosures.
Magazine article from: IP Litigator Matthews, Robert A., Jr. May 1, 2004 700+ words
In 2002, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc...the "disclosure-dedication rule." Johnson involved...equivalents, the Federal Circuit has required that...of this year, the Federal Circuit addressed the specificity...
Applying The Disclosure-Dedication Rule to Implicit Disclosures.(Johnson &...
News wire article from: Mondaq Business Briefing July 22, 2004 700+ words
...Business In 2002, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc...the "disclosure-dedication rule." Johnson involved...equivalents, the Federal Circuit has required that...of this year, the Federal Circuit addressed the specificity...
The Federal Circuit's "Exclusive" Jurisdiction Ain't So Exclusive.
News wire article from: Mondaq Business Briefing March 17, 2003 700+ words
...United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stands unique among federal appellate...C. [section] 1295(a), the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction of a final...1295(a) appears to vest in the Federal Circuit jurisdiction to hear all appeals of...
The Federal Circuit's "exclusive" jurisdiction ain't so exclusive.
Magazine article from: IP Litigator Matthews, Robert A., Jr. January 1, 2003 700+ words
The Federal Circuit's "Exclusive" Jurisdiction...The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stands unique among federal appellate...section] 1295(a), the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction of a...
Exclusion confusion? A defense of the Federal Circuit's specific exclusion...
Magazine article from: Michigan Law Review Magic, Peter Curtis November 1, 2007 700+ words
...of the doctrine's development to the Federal Circuit. Critics argue that the Federal Circuit has applied specific exclusion, which...equivalents. The critics assert that the Federal Circuit has unduly narrowed the doctrine of equivalents...
Patent counterclaim may not create Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction.
Magazine article from: The Licensing Journal Sommer, Evelyn M. March 1, 2003 700+ words
Until recently, the Federal Circuit relegated antitrust issues to...appeals that have made it to the Federal Circuit have been within the court...of antitrust rulings by the Federal Circuit could end up depriving the regional...
Supreme Court holds Federal Circuit does not have appellate jurisdiction by...
Magazine article from: Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal Antonelli, Matthew Ezring, Bernadette McCann August 1, 2002 700+ words
...that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit does not have appellate jurisdiction...exclusive appellate jurisdiction on the Federal Circuit for all patent-related claims...an antidote to the risk that the [Federal Circuit] may develop an institutional bias...
Federal Circuit 2004: eight significant patent law developments every IP...
Magazine article from: IP Litigator Mueller, Janice M. January 1, 2005 700+ words
...the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues decisions that impact the conduct...virtually all US patent cases, (2) the Federal Circuit currently issues on average about...litigators. All were issued by the Federal Circuit during the one-year period from...
In Sweeping Change, Federal Circuit Lowers Threshold For Declaratory Judgment...
News wire article from: Mondaq Business Briefing April 17, 2007 700+ words
...05-1300 On March 26, 2007, the Federal Circuit significantly lowered the bar for...Supreme Court's rejection of the Federal Circuit's "reasonable apprehension of suit...Ct. 764 (January 9, 2007), the Federal Circuit set forth a new rule and held that...
For more facts and information, see all results

Source: HighBeam Research, Intent is Not an Element of The Disclosure-Dedication Rule.

©2009 Gale, a part of Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
About us | FAQs | Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms and conditions
Other Gale sites: Encyclopedia.com | HighBeam Research | Acquire Content | Books & Authors | Goliath | MovieRetriever | Smart QandA