Larami Corporation v. Amron 27 USPQ2d 1280 (E.D. Pa 1993)
Facts – Larami manufactures super-soaker water-guns. These all use a hadn operated air pump to pressurize water and a trigger/valve mechanism to control the ejection of the water. These water-guns also have a removable water-tank. Defendants TTMP claim that Super Soaker infringes their ‘129 patent. The ‘129 patent covers a water gun which operates by pressurizing water, like the Super-Soaker. Unlike the Super-Soaker, the TTMP gun contains electrical features to illuminate the water stream and make noises. The water tank is not detachable in the ‘129 patent.
Procedure – TTMP claim infringement of their patent, and Larami moved for partial summary judgment of non-infringement and partial summary judgment on TTMP’s counterclaim for infringement of the ‘129 patent.
Rule – The right to exclude is limited and defined in the language of the patent’s claims. Establishing infringement requires interpretation of the claims. Infringement can be sought two ways:
1. literally infringement
2. infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Holding/Reasoning – Larami’s motion for summary judgment was granted The absence of one element of the patent’s claim from the accused product means there can be no finding of literal infringement. The claim thus does not literally infringe. Next, because there was not a substantial equivalent of every limitation or element of the claim (the detachable water reservoir was such a far improvement from the original design) and thus there was not infringement by equivalents.
Facts – Larami manufactures super-soaker water-guns. These all use a hadn operated air pump to pressurize water and a trigger/valve mechanism to control the ejection of the water. These water-guns also have a removable water-tank. Defendants TTMP claim that Super Soaker infringes their ‘129 patent. The ‘129 patent covers a water gun which operates by pressurizing water, like the Super-Soaker. Unlike the Super-Soaker, the TTMP gun contains electrical features to illuminate the water stream and make noises. The water tank is not detachable in the ‘129 patent.
Procedure – TTMP claim infringement of their patent, and Larami moved for partial summary judgment of non-infringement and partial summary judgment on TTMP’s counterclaim for infringement of the ‘129 patent.
Rule – The right to exclude is limited and defined in the language of the patent’s claims. Establishing infringement requires interpretation of the claims. Infringement can be sought two ways:
1. literally infringement
2. infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Holding/Reasoning – Larami’s motion for summary judgment was granted The absence of one element of the patent’s claim from the accused product means there can be no finding of literal infringement. The claim thus does not literally infringe. Next, because there was not a substantial equivalent of every limitation or element of the claim (the detachable water reservoir was such a far improvement from the original design) and thus there was not infringement by equivalents.