Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical

Citation520 U.S. 17,117 S.Ct. 1040,137 L.Ed.2d 146
Decision Date03 March 1997
Docket Number95728
PartiesCOMPANY, INC., Petitioner v. HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

520 U.S. 17
117 S.Ct. 1040
137 L.Ed.2d 146


WARNER-JENKINSON COMPANY, INC., Petitioner

v.

HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO.

No. 95-728.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Oct. 15, 1996.
Decided March 3, 1997.
Syllabus *

Petitioner and respondent both manufacture dyes from which impurities must be removed. Respondent's "'746 patent,'' which issued in 1985, discloses an improved purification process involving the "ultrafiltration'' of dye through a porous membrane at pH levels between 6.0 and 9.0. The inventors so limited their claim's pH element during patent prosecution after the patent examiner objected because of a perceived overlap with the earlier "Booth'' patent, which disclosed an ultrafiltration process operating at a pH above 9.0. In 1986, petitioner developed its own ultrafiltration process, which operated at a pH level of 5.0. Respondent sued for infringement of the '746 patent, relying solely on the "doctrine of equivalents,'' under which a product or process that does not literally infringe upon the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is "equivalence'' between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented invention. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 609, 70 S.Ct. 854, 856-857, 94 L.Ed. 1097. Over petitioner's objections that this is an equitable doctrine and is to be applied by the court, the equivalence issue was included among those sent to the jury, which found, inter alia, that petitioner infringed upon the '746 patent. The District Court, among its rulings, entered a permanent injunction against petitioner. The en banc Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the doctrine of equivalents continues to exist, that the question of equivalence is for the jury to decide, and that the jury had substantial evidence from which to conclude that petitioner's process was not substantially different from the process disclosed in the '746 patent.

Held:

1.The Court adheres to the doctrine of equivalents. Pp. ____-____.

(a) In Graver Tank, supra, at 609, 70 S.Ct., at 856-857, the Court, inter alia, described some of the considerations that go into applying the doctrine, such as the patent's context, the prior art, and the particular circumstances of the case, including the purpose for which an ingredient is used in the patent, the qualities it has when combined with the other ingredients, the function it is intended to perform, and whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was. Pp. ____-____.

(b) This Court rejects petitioner's primary argument, that the doctrine of equivalents, as set out in Graver Tank in 1950, is inconsistent with, and thus did not survive, particular aspects of Congress' 1952 revision of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §100 et seq. Petitioner's first three arguments in this regard-that the doctrine (1) is inconsistent with §112's requirement that a patentee specifically "claim'' the covered invention, (2) circumvents the patent reissue process under §§251-252, and (3) is inconsistent with the primacy of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in setting a patent's scope-were made in Graver Tank, supra, at 613-615, and n. 3, 70 S.Ct., at 858-860, and n. 3, in the context of the 1870 Patent Act, and failed to command a majority. The 1952 Act is not materially different from the 1870 Act with regard to these matters. Also unpersuasive is petitioner's fourth argument, that the doctrine of equivalents was implicitly rejected as a general matter by Congress' specific and limited inclusion of it in §112, ¶6. This new provision was enacted as a targeted cure in response to Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1, 8, 67 S.Ct. 6, 9-10, 91 L.Ed. 3, and thereby to allow so-called "means'' claims describing an element of an invention by the result accomplished or the function served. Moreover, the statutory reference to "equivalents'' appears to be no more than a prophylactic against potential side effects of that cure, i.e., an attempt to limit the application of the broad literal language of "means'' claims to those means that are "equivalent'' to the actual means shown in the patent specification. Pp. ____-____.

(c) The determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis. The Court is concerned that the doctrine, as it has come to be broadly applied since Graver Tank, conflicts with the Court's numerous holdings that a patent may not be enlarged beyond the scope of its claims. The way to reconcile the two lines of authority is to apply the doctrine to each of the individual elements of a claim, rather than to the accused product or process as a whole. Doing so will preserve some meaning for each of a claim's elements, all of which are deemed material to defining the invention's scope. So long as the doctrine does not encroach beyond these limits, or beyond related limits discussed in the Court's opinion, infra, at __-__, __, n. 8, and __-__, it will not vitiate the central functions of patent claims to define the invention and to notify the public of the patent's scope. Pp. ____-____.

(d) Petitioner is correct that Graver Tank did not supersede the well-established limitation on the doctrine of equivalents known as "prosecution history estoppel,'' whereby a surrender of subject matter during patent prosecution may preclude recapturing any part of that subject matter, even if it is equivalent to the matter expressly claimed. But petitioner reaches too far in arguing that any such surrender establishes a bright line beyond which no equivalents may be claimed, and that the reason for an amendment during patent prosecution is therefore irrelevant to any subsequent estoppel. There are a variety of reasons why the PTO may request a change in claim language, and if the patent-holder demonstrates that an amendment had a purpose unrelated to patentability, a court must consider that purpose in order to decide whether an estoppel is precluded. Where the patent-holder is unable to establish such a purpose, the court should presume that the purpose behind the required amendment is such that prosecution history estoppel would apply. Here, it is undisputed that the upper limit of 9.0 pH was added to '746 patent in order to distinguish the Booth patent, but the record before this Court does not reveal the reason for adding the lower 6.0 pH limit. It is therefore impossible to tell whether the latter reason could properly avoid an estoppel. Pp. ____-____.

(e) The Court rejects petitioner's argument that Graver Tank requires judicial exploration of the intent of the alleged infringer or a case's other equities before allowing application of the doctrine of equivalents. Although Graver Tank certainly leaves room for the inclusion of intent-based elements in the doctrine, the Court does not read the case as requiring proof of intent. The better view, and the one consistent with Graver Tank's predecessors, see e.g., Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 330, 343, 14 L.Ed. 717, and the objective approach to infringement, is that intent plays no role in the doctrine's application. Pp. ____-____.

(f) The Court also rejects petitioner's proposal that in order to minimize conflict with the notice function of patent claims, the doctrine of equivalents should be limited to equivalents that are disclosed within the patent itself. Insofar as the question under the doctrine is whether an accused element is equivalent to a claimed element, the proper time for evaluating equivalency-and knowledge of interchangeability between elements-is at the time of infringement, not at the time the patent was issued. P. 1053.

(g) The Court declines to consider whether application of the doctrine of equivalents is a task for the judge or for the jury, since resolution of that question is not necessary to answer the question here presented. P. 1053.

(h) In the Court's view, the particular linguistic framework used to determine "equivalence,'' whether the so-called "triple identity'' test or the "insubstantial differences'' test, is less important than whether the test is probative of the essential inquiry: Does the accused product or process contain elements identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented invention? Different linguistic frameworks may be more suitable to different cases, depending on their particular facts. The Court leaves it to the Federal Circuit's sound judgment in this area of its special expertise to refine the formulation of the test for equivalence in the orderly course of case-by-case determinations. P. 1054.

2.Because the Federal Circuit did not consider all of the requirements of the doctrine of equivalents as described by the Court in this case, particularly as related to prosecution history estoppel and the preservation of some meaning for each element in a claim, further proceedings are necessary. P. 1054.

62 F.3d 1512, reversed and remanded.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for unanimous Court. GINSBURG, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which KENNEDY, J., joined.

Richard G. Taranto, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, DC, amicus curiae for U.S.

David E. Schmit, Cincinnati, OH, for respondent.

Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Nearly 50 years ago, this Court in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 70 S.Ct. 854, 94 L.Ed. 1097 (1950), set out the modern contours of what is known in patent law as the "doctrine of equivalents.'' Under this doctrine, a product or process that does not literally infringe upon the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is "equivalence'' between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented invention. Id., at 609,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1630 cases
  • Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., Civil Action No. 93-110-JJF.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • June 1, 1998
    ...Co. v. Linde Air. Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608, 70 S.Ct. 854, 94 L.Ed. 1097 (1950); Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997) (declining to overrule Graver Tank); Malta v. Schulmerich Carillons, Inc., 952 F.2d 1320, 132......
  • Discovision Associates v. Disc Mfg., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • October 26, 1998
    ...claim, infringement may still be established under the doctrine of equivalents. See Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 1045, 1051, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997). Under this doctrine, infringement is established if "there is `equivalence' between the elemen......
  • Eastman Kodak Co. v. Agfa-Gevaert N.V.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • April 22, 2008
    ...Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int% Inc., 141 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed.Cir. 1998); see also Wamer-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 40, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997) ("An analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim will thus ......
  • MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS LLC. v. ARTHREX INC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • June 3, 2010
    ...or its equivalent, is found in the accused device. Oakley, Inc., 316 F.3d at 1339 (citing Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997)). To prove literal infringement, MicroAire must show “that the accused device contains each limit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 firm's commentaries
  • Lifting The Veil Of Secrecy: 18-Month Publication Of Patent Applications In The U.S. Under The AIPA And Patent Risk Management
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 8, 2001
    ...of Equivalents that remained unanswered by the Supreme Court Decision in the patent case Warner Jenkins Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 137 Ed. 2d 146, 117 S. Ct. 1040 In general, Festo held that if a patent claim is narrowed for any reason that relates to the statutory requi......
  • Proof of Equivalence After Festo
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 12, 2002
    ...the claim limitations to determine their equivalents. As the Supreme Court explained in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997), "application of the doctrine of equivalents involves determining whether a particular accused product or process infringes upon the ......
  • Foreseeability Does Not Bar The Doctrine Of Equivalents, Including For Means-Plus-Function Limitations
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 25, 2014
    ...U.S. App. LEXIS 2962, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2014). 2 Id. at *5-7. 3 Id. at *7-9. 4 Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 21 (1997) (emphasis 5 Id. at 27 ("[A]n applicant can describe an element of his invention by the result accomplished or the function served, ra......
  • Claim Construction, Findings Of Fact, And Indefiniteness In The Wake Of Teva v. Sandoz
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • April 15, 2015
    ...Cir. Mar. 10, 2015). 44 Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2128, 2130. 45 Id. at 2130 (quoting Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 40 46 Id. at 2128 (quoting Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 731 (2002)). 47 Id. at 2129 (quoting United Carbo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
42 books & journal articles
  • Table Of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Counterattack in Intellectual Property Litigation Handbook
    • January 1, 2010
    ...Cir. 1998), 53, 54. Warner Bros. v. Dae Rim Trading, 677 F. Supp. 740 (S.D.N.Y. 1988), 76. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997), 23, 24, 25. Warner Lambert Co. v. Purepac Pharm. Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22559 (D.N.J. 2000), 182. Water Techs. v. Calco, Ltd., 8......
  • Tesla, Marconi, and the great radio controversy: awarding patent damages without chilling a defendant's incentive to innovate.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 73 No. 3, June 2008
    • June 22, 2008
    ...392-94 (2007) (discussing classifications of cheese based on enumerated criteria). (166.) Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29 (1997). (167.) Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). (168.) Multiform Desiccan......
  • When 30 Years of Practice Goes Against You: Patent Venue Ruling 'Ignores' Supreme Court Precedent
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 10-5, May 2018
    • May 1, 2018
    ...26. Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336, 342 (1961); accord Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 26 (1997) (“In the context of infringement, we have already held that pre-1952 precedent survived the passage of the 1952 Act.”). 27. Compare Pa......
  • The PTAB Is Not an Article III Court, Part 2: Aqua Products v. Matal as a Case Study in Administrative Law
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 10-5, May 2018
    • May 1, 2018
    ...26. Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336, 342 (1961); accord Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 26 (1997) (“In the context of infringement, we have already held that pre-1952 precedent survived the passage of the 1952 Act.”). 27. Compare Pa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT