Valmont Industries, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Reinke Manufacturing Company, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting § 112 ¶ 6 “operates more like the reverse doctrine of equivalents than the doctrine of equivalents because it restricts the coverage of literal claim language”
• noting § 112 ¶ 6 “operates more like the reverse doctrine of equivalents than the doctrine of equivalents because it restricts the coverage of literal claim language”
• finding no infringement where although accused device performed “the same function” and achieved “substantially the same result,” it did so in a “very different way,” using a means that was not an identical or equivalent structure under section 112(6)
• \The applicant must describe in the patent specification some structure which performs the specified function.\
• \the doctrine 'is designed to do equity'\ (quoting Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 822 F.2d 1528, 1532, 3 USPQ2d 1321, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1987)) (emphasis added)
• \The word 'equivalent' in section 112 invokes the familiar concept of an insubstantial change.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).