BOWMAN & BROOKS SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDS MASTERCARE IN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT; MERCHANT & GOULD REPRESENTED THE PLAINTFF
Apollo Corp. v. Mastercare Patient Equipment, Inc.
Civil No. 02-390 (DWF/SRN) (D. Minn. 7/7/2003)
DONOVAN W. FRANK, Judge of United States District Court
"Both parties assert that the Court must construe the claim
language at issue before further addressing the motions pending
before the Court. The Court agrees. However, while the parties'
briefs address limited issues of claim construction, they do so
in a piecemeal fashion rather than in the comprehensive, coherent
fashion that would accompany a Markman hearing. Accordingly, the
Court will, at this time, limit itself to interpreting those
elements of the claims that are dispositive of the motions before
it rather than attempting to cobble together a full claim
construction chart.
. . .
The Court finds that, as a matter of law, the accused product
does not read on the following claim limitation: "said locking
means including a lock member pivotably attached to said second
pivoting means . . . ." Accordingly, the accused product does not
literally infringe claim 3 or claim 7 of the '400 patent.
. . .
Moreover, because the "[p]rosecution history estoppel precludes a
patentee from obtaining under the doctrine of equivalents
coverage of subject matter that has been relinquished during the
prosecution of its patent application" . . ., Apollo's
infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents is
precluded, and summary judgment is appropriate."
7:23:50 PM 
|
|
