Yesterday, visiting Judge Bataillon excluded a patentee's expert opinion where the expert tried to use the doctrine of equivalents to skirt the Court's construction of a term.
The Court had initially rejected a preliminary injunction motion by the patentee, holding that it had failed to show a likelihood of success on infringement based on its proposed claim construction.
The patentee then proposed the same construction during claim construction before the magistrate judge, who issued an R&R rejecting it.
The patentee then objected to the R&R, but the Court adopted the construction in the R&R and again rejected the patentee's proposed construction.
Specifically, the Court held that the claims required two elements that each have a different thickness and composition: …