In the recent decision NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, the Federal Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling, asserted that expert testimony alone is insufficient for establishing the doctrine of equivalents, particularly in simple technology cases.
Judge Chen's majority opinion emphasized a strict standard for expert testimony in establishing equivalency, highlighting the necessity for substantial evidence beyond mere conclusions to support claims of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
In his dissent, Judge Reyna criticized the majority for imposing excessively rigid standards that could hinder legitimate infringement claims, suggesting that the evidentiary threshold for the doctrine of equivalents should be more flexible to accommodate technological nuances.
The case underscores the Federal Circuit's longstanding skepticism toward the doctrine of equivalents, reinforcing the notion that juries often have their decisions undermined when the court finds expert testimony insufficient, regardless of technological simplicity.
Collection
[
|
...
]