Patent dispute over Wig Grip is upheld as no copyright violation by Federal Circuit Court
In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld a district court's summary judgment of non-infringement in the case of NG LLC v. CreatedHair Designs, LLC. The case centred on the proper construction of a key claim term and the application of prosecution history estoppel.
The patents in question, U.S. Patent No. 10,945,477 and U.S. Patent No. 10,881,159, are owned by NG and concern a wig grip apparatus comprising a mesh element. Claim 1 of these patents specifies that the mesh element includes a forward periphery, and the wig grip apparatus terminates at the forward periphery.
Initially, NG submitted amendments to address the extension of the middle mesh section of the wig grip apparatus. However, the court determined that 'other parts of the wig grip apparatus (including the two securement members) cannot extend beyond it.' This ruling was based on the specification, which states that the securement members may each include a forward edge, and the forward periphery may preferably be in alignment with the forward edges.
NG contended it could rebut the presumption of estoppel because the amendment was only 'tangentially related' to the equivalent it was attempting to capture. However, the Federal Circuit concluded that this prosecution history exchange precluded NG from recapturing what was previously surrendered. The court's judgment was therefore affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California construed the term 'the wig grip apparatus terminates at the forward periphery' as 'the forward periphery of the mesh element is the most forward portion of the wig grip apparatus.' Under this construction, NG conceded there was no literal infringement and argued for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
However, the Federal Circuit was not persuaded by NG's argument. The court agreed with the district court's application of prosecution history estoppel to NG's doctrine of equivalents argument. The Federal Circuit also noted that the statement about the mesh section extension to the forward edge being a distinguishing feature 'undermines NG's contention.'
Furthermore, support for the court's construction appears in the specification by discussing the mesh element's forward periphery in relation to the securement members. The Federal Circuit rejected NG's argument, finding that the entire wig grip apparatus of claim 1 terminates at the forward periphery of the mesh element.
Interestingly, it is worth noting that the patents in question are held by Apple Inc. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of careful wording in patent claims and the potential consequences of amendments during the patent prosecution process.
Read also:
- User Data Analysis on Epic Games Store
- Rachel Reeves conducts a discussion with Scott Bessent and financial executives, focusing on investment matters
- Hyundai accelerates production plans: Introducing 7 new N models, aiming for a sales figure of 100,000 units by 2030.
- Yasa, an electric car engine producer, plans to broaden its operations.
