Brief Fact Summary. Johnston (Plaintiff) brought suit against R.E. Service, Co., Inc. and Mark Frater (collectively, “RES”) (Defendant) for infringement.Â Defendant argued that Plaintiff did not claim stell substrates, therefore this unclaimed subject matter was committed to the public.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Â A patentee is not able to apply the doctrine of equivalents to cover unclaimed subject matter disclosed in the specification.
Issue. Is a patentee able to apply the doctrine of equivalents to cover unclaimed subject matter disclosed in the specification?
Held. (Per curiam)Â No.Â A patentee is not able to apply the doctrine of equivalents to cover unclaimed subject matter disclosed in the specification.Â Therefore, under the doctrine of equivalents, Defendant could not have infringed Plaintiff’s patent.Â Claims define and give notice of the scope of patent protection.Â The claim requirement assumes that a patent applicant defines his invention in the claims, not in the specification.Â The law of infringement compares the accused product with the claims as interpreted by the court and not with included illustrations in the specifications.Â When the drafter of a patent discloses but declines to claim subject matter, this action commits that unclaimed subject matter to the public.Â The doctrine of equivalents gives the right to exclude beyond the literal claims.Â Applying the doctrine of equivalents to subject matter deliberately left unclaimed conflicts with the dominance of claims in defining the scope of the patentee’s exclusive right.Â Therefore, a patentee cannot narrowly claim an invention to avoid prosecution scrutiny by the PTO, and then after the patent is issued, establish infringement by using the doctrine of equivalents claiming the specification discloses equivalents.Â In this case, Plaintiff’s patent specifically limited the claims to a sheet of aluminum and the aluminum sheet.Â However, the specification included other metals that might be used, such as stainless steel or nickel alloy.Â By disclosing steel supporting materials without claiming them, Plaintiff cannot now invoke the doctrine of equivalents to extend its aluminum limitation to encompass steel.Â However, a patentee can remedy the situation by filing a reissue application within two years from the original patent issued, or by filing a separate application.Â Reversed.
The claim is the measure of his right to relief, and while the specification may be referred to to limit the claim, it can never be made available to expand it.View Full Point of Law
Discussion. The Supreme Court was drafting Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722 (2002) when this case was decided.