Facts

Defendant Wine Master Cellars, LLLP alleged that plaintiff Vinotemp International Corp infringed upon its patent. However, the court agreed with Plaintiff that Defendant was estopped from alleging patent infringement through the doctrine of equivalents because the defendant was found to have made a narrowing amendment that was substantially related to patentability during the prosecution of its patent.

The court rejected Defendant's argument that the equivalent embodied in plaintiff's wine rack was unforeseeable at the time the amendment was made because the equivalent was well known in the art at the time of the amendment and the inventor testified during his deposition that he had contemplated the equivalent embodiment from as early as 2004, well before the time the amendment was made. Because Defendant could not allege any claims for direct infringement, it could not pursue any claims for indirect infringement.

Plaintiff's claim related to its own patent and the parties' contract claims remained in the case.

Result

The court granted declaratory judgment Vinotemp's motion for partial summary judgment that its wine racks did not directly or indirectly infringe defendant Wine Master's patent.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Feb. 22, 2011.