CAFC takes a new look at "rear end" definition
Research Plastics v. Federal Packaging (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In a dispute over caulking tubes, Research appealed a district court judgment of non-infringement — arguing that the lower court had erred in its claim construction.
Claim construction centered on the claim term “rear end.” Referencing only intrinsic evidence, the CAFC determined that the lower court had erred slightly in its definition of the term — finding that the prosecution history provided substantial support for defining the rear end as the “point defined by the rear edge of the tube.” On remand, the district court must reconsider literal infringement in light of the new construction.
Regarding the Doctrine of Equivalents, the Court found that Research had disclaimed equivalents to a ribbed nozzle by amending the claims to overcome a cited reference. Thus, under Festo, that scope cannot be recaptured as an equivalent to the claimed invention.
Recent Comments