Comfort Strapp v. Targus (CAFC 2007-1273)

The give in the claimed strap comes from using two different materials for the strap.

Because Targus’s accused straps consist of a single fabric, no reasonable juror could find literal infringement of Claim 1, which requires center and end sections made of different materials.

The plaintiff tried some artless dissembling in claim construction.

On appeal, Comfort Strapp argues that, in construing the “auxiliary strap means” limitation, the district court should have consulted general purpose dictionaries, which define “separate” to mean “dissimilar in nature or identity,” and “material” to mean “matter that has qualities that give it individuality and by which it may be categorized.” Thus, Comfort Strapp seeks a claim construction that emphasizes the functional attributes rather than the chemical composition of the auxiliary strap means and its component sections.

Doctrine of equivalents (DOE) is out of the question, as reaching to infringement would ignore (vitiate) claim limitations. DOE is applied as a stretch, not as an exercise in turning a blind eye to claim limitations.

Neither did the district court err in granting summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. We agree that there exist more than “insubstantial differences” between the accused products and the claimed invention; this precludes a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. See Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 610 (1950) (requiring mere “insubstantial” differences for the doctrine of equivalents to apply). As the district court found, the Targus strap, which has an auxiliary strap means composed of a single unitary material made of the same fabric, is the fundamental opposite of the claimed invention, in which the auxiliary strap means requires separate sections made of different materials. Likewise, a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents would impermissibly vitiate claim limitations. See Freedman Seating Co. v. Am. Seating Co., 420 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[A]n element of an accused product or process is not, as a matter of law, equivalent to a limitation of the claimed invention if such a finding would entirely vitiate the limitation.”). Here, Claim 1 requires separate center and end sections that are made of different materials; finding equivalence with a single strap lacking separate sections and different materials would impermissibly vitiate this limitation.

This was a no-brainer decision by the CAFC. There appears no excuse for assertion in this instance. It's not like the plaintiff & counsel couldn't couldn't get their hands on the accused product and figure it out without discovery. What was Wleklinski smoking? Gregory J. Gonsalves of Jenner & Block was the plaintiff counsel that disgracefully took this through appeal.