直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Been There, Done That: Kessler Doctrine Bars New Infringement Theories on Already Litigated Claims

July 07, 2015

Authored and Edited by Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Carlos J. Rosario, Lauren J. Dreyer

In SpeedTrack v. Office Depot, No. 14-1475 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding that the Kessler doctrine precluded SpeedTrack from asserting its patent’s claims against Office Depot and others.

The Kessler doctrine gives a prevailing party the right to sell its products to customers without fear of continued challenges based on the same patent. In a previously litigated case, SpeedTrack asserted that Walmart used software owned by Oracle that allowed website visitors to search for products, but the district court found no literal infringement. In this dispute, SpeedTrack asserted similar claims against the accused infringers, including a new doctrine of equivalents theory.

The Federal Circuit held that “it is Oracle’s right that its customers should . . . be let alone by SpeedTrack, and it is SpeedTrack’s duty to let them alone.”  And even though SpeedTrack had not asserted the doctrine of equivalents in the Walmart case, the Court held that the Kessler doctrine barred not only the assertion of new claims, but new theories involving the same claims, such as the doctrine of equivalents.

Tags

Doctrine of Equivalents, infringement

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Lecture

2026 Donald R. Dunner Endowed Lecture

October 27, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

2026 FCBA Global Series Fall Session

October 14-16, 2026

Dublin

Seminar

PTAB Bar Association Thought Leader Summit 2026

October 7, 2026

Alexandria

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Webinar

PTAB Developments and Their Impact on Parallel Litigation: Strategic Considerations

August 26, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

A Year of Change for Post-Grant Patent Challenges: Key PTAB and CRU Developments, and Strategic Implications

August 19, 2026

Webinar

Articles

Privacy Law Mid-Year Update: Key EU and UK Data Protection Decisions

August 13, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP