Nika Aldrich
Jan 27, 2025

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases

PTAB Litigation

Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppman Corp., Appeal No. 2023-1790 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2025)‎

In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit addressed an “anachronistic exception, ‎long mentioned but rarely applied” in the field of patents: the “reverse doctrine of equivalents.” This marks ‎the first time the doctrine has appeared in Federal Circuit precedent in more than 15 years. As the Court ‎noted, it had “never affirmed a decision finding noninfringement based on the reverse doctrine of ‎equivalents.” This case provided no exception.‎

The patents at issue concerned systems for aseptic packaging of food products. An improvement over the ‎prior art concerned a “second sterile region positioned proximate” to a “first sterile region,” which surrounded ‎a region where the food product exited a valve. This “second sterile region” allegedly solved a problem with ‎potential contamination.‎

Steuben filed suit against Shibuya, alleging its aseptic bottling line infringed three of Steuben’s patents. At ‎summary judgment, Shibuya argued that its system did not have a “second sterile region,” and that there ‎were material factual disputes concerning application of the reverse doctrine of equivalents.  The district court ‎found literal infringement, but also found that trial was warranted on Shibuya’s reverse doctrine of ‎equivalents theory. At trial, the jury found Shibuya had infringed, but the district court granted JMOL of no ‎infringement. The district court found that Shibuya had presented a prima facie case of establishing it had not ‎infringed under the reverse doctrine of equivalents, and that the rebuttal testimony of Steuben’s expert was ‎wrong as a matter of law and entitled to no weight. Steuben appealed, arguing that the reverse doctrine of ‎equivalents is not a viable defense to infringement, and that the district court had otherwise erred in ‎overturning the jury’s verdict of infringement.‎

The Federal Circuit started by discussing the background of the reverse doctrine of equivalents. The doctrine ‎derives from a case from the late 1800s, Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse, 170 U.S. 537, 568 (1898), in ‎which the Supreme Court had stated:‎

We have repeatedly held that a charge of infringement is sometimes made out, though the letter of ‎the claims be avoided. The converse is equally true. The patentee may bring the defendant within the ‎letter of his claims, but if the latter has so far changed the principle of the device that the claims of the ‎patent, literally construed, have ceased to represent his actual invention, he is as little subject to be ‎adjudged an infringer as one who has violated the letter of a statute has to be convicted, when he has ‎done nothing in conflict with its spirit and intent.‎

The Supreme Court made a similar statement in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. ‎‎605, 608–9 (1950), in which they commented:‎

‎[The doctrine of equivalents] is not always applied in favor of a patentee but is sometimes used ‎against him. Thus, where a device is so far changed in principle from a patented article that it performs ‎the same or a similar function in a substantially different way, but nevertheless falls within the literal ‎words of the claim, the doctrine of equivalents may be used to restrict the claim and defeat the ‎patentee’s action for infringement. ‎

However, the doctrine had rarely surfaced in the ensuing years, and the Federal Circuit has never affirmed a ‎decision that found infringement based on it. Steuben argued that the reverse doctrine of equivalents had ‎been preempted by the Patent Act of 1952, contending that it conflicts with 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and had been ‎subsumed in 35 U.S.C. § 112 when Congress enacted the 1952 act.‎

The Federal Circuit found these arguments “compelling,” but ultimately concluded that it “need not decide” ‎the issue, because the jury had substantial evidence to find infringement notwithstanding the doctrine. The ‎Court instead held that the district court erred by overturning the jury verdict because the testimony of ‎Steuben’s expert had provided sufficient evidence for the jury to resolve the issue of infringement in ‎Steuben’s favor. A determination of whether the reverse doctrine of infringement survives will have to wait ‎for another day.‎

The Court also affirmed findings with respect to two other patents. With respect to one, the Court applied the ‎doctrine of vitiation to a claim term construed under Section 112(f), and ruled that a patent requiring a sterilant ‎to be added “intermittently” could not be satisfied by a system that adds the sterilant “continuously.” ‎

The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court with respect to JMOL decisions on validity and ‎damages that were insufficiently reasoned. ‎

Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader  Schwabe

Jason Wrubleski, Shareholder

Categories
1
0 Comments