• Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Careers
  • Tools
Finnegan
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • IP FDA Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Articles
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Webinars
  • Books

Federal Circuit IP Blog

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

July 07, 2015

By Carlos J. Rosario

Edited by Elizabeth D. Ferrill; 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_Ferrill
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+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

2021 Bench & Bar Virtual Conference

June 21-25, 2021

Virtual

Conference

Best Practices in Intellectual Property 2021

June 14-15, 2021

Tel Aviv

Conference

2021 Sedona Conference on Remote Case Management of IP Proceedings

June 10-11, 2021

Virtual

Conference

Global Med Device IP Summit

June 2-4, 2021

Shenzhen

Conference

AIPLA Virtual Spring Meeting 2021

May 10-14, 2021

Virtual

Webinar

Inherency Doctrine in Patent Prosecution and Litigation

May 5, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Ad Idem on New Risks: 2021 and Beyond

May 4, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Recent Pharmaceutical, Chemical, and Biotech Patent Case Law on Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents

April 22, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Dispute Resolution Challenges: Innovation, Self-Help, and Judicial Systems

April 22, 2021

Webinar

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

We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP