Facts

UCP International Company Limited and others sued Balsam Brands Inc. for declaratory judgment of non-infringement.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS: UCP moved for summary judgment contending that its artificial Christmas tree, the Inversion Tree, did not literally infringe on Balsam’s patents and did not infringe on the patents under the doctrine of equivalents.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS: Balsam argued that UCP’s Inversion Tree literally infringed on its patents because, among other things, the Inversion Tree had a literal pivot joint like Balsam’s tree.

Result

The court found no literal infringement and no infringement by equivalence. Therefore, UCP's motion for summary judgment was granted. The court ultimately held that a reasonable jury would not find that the Inversion Tree performed substantially the same function as Balsam's tree, in substantially the same way as Balsam's tree, to achieve a substantially similar result.