1. Insights
  2. Blogs
  3. IP Newsflash

Summary Judgment Denied on Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents Defense

May 4, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Rachel J. Elsby

An accused infringer may rely on the reverse doctrine of equivalents as a defense “where a[n accused] 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.” Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prod. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608-09 (1950).  It “is an equitable doctrine designed ‘to prevent unwarranted extension of the claims beyond a fair scope of the patentee’s invention.’” Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 531 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Although rare, the reverse doctrine of equivalents has been found to exist “where defendants are not gaining the benefit of plaintiffs’ patents, but their equipment could fall within the literal language of the patents.” Precision Metal Fabricators, Inc. v. Jetstream Sys. Co., Div. of Oerlikon Match Corp., 693 F. Supp. 814, 819 (N.D. Cal. 1988). However, “[b]ecause the reverse doctrine of equivalents requires a fundamental change in the basic principle by which the device operates, the doctrine is rarely invoked and virtually never sustained.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Roche, 531 F.3d at 1378 (“[T]his court has never affirmed a finding of non infringement under the reverse doctrine of equivalents.”).

Here, Intel argued that the claims require the dynamic logic circuit to use a delay to purposefully cause simultaneous activation of the precharge and evaluation transistors to overcome the problem of charge-sharing.  According to Intel, the accused devices operate under a fundamentally different principle of operation.  In its motion for summary judgment, AVM argued that Intel’s reverse doctrine of equivalents defense fails as a matter of law because Intel applied the wrong test and focused on the purpose for which its products allegedly use the claimed invention. In addition, AVM challenged the sufficiency of Intel’s evidence.

In denying AVM’s motion for summary judgment, the court held that the evidence and arguments presented by the parties raised genuine disputes of material fact that preclude summary judgment.

AVM Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Civ. No. 15-cv-33-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 28, 2017)

Share This Insight

Categories

District CourtNon-InfringementDoctrine of EquivalentsDistrict of Delaware
Subscribe to the IP Newsflash Blog Series >

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 1, 2025

In a Hatch-Waxman case, the District of Delaware denied a motion for summary judgment seeking to apply the ANDA filing date as the date of the hypothetical negotiation used to calculate reasonable royalty damages. Instead, the court determined that the appropriate date to use for the hypothetical negotiation is the launch date.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 17,2025

The district of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement from the litigation, finding instead that the allegations taken as a whole were sufficient to support pre-suit willfulness at the pleading stage. Specifically, the court found that the allegations as to the defendant’s involvement in a related foreign opposition proceeding and participation in the relevant industry were accompanied by detailed factual support that sufficiently pleaded willful infringement for the pre-suit period.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.