Patent Dispute Settled: Federal Appeals Court Upholds Decision Favoring Non-Infringement in Wig Clip Case
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 NG LLC v. CreatedHair Designs, LLC. The case centered on the proper construction of a key claim term and the application of prosecution history estoppel in U.S. Patents No. 10,945,477 and No. 10,881,159, both owned by NG LLC.
The patents 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. During prosecution, NG added this limitation to overcome a rejection related to prior art.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California construed "the wig grip apparatus terminates at the forward periphery" to mean "the forward periphery of the mesh element is the most forward portion of the wig grip apparatus." Support for this construction appears in the specification by discussing the mesh element's forward periphery in relation to the securement members.
NG initially submitted amendments stating that "the wig grip apparatus lacks non-transparency beyond the forward periphery," but later agreed to change the language to "the wig grip apparatus terminates at the forward periphery." However, the Federal Circuit was not persuaded by NG's argument that the amendment was only "tangentially related" to the equivalent it was attempting to capture.
The Federal Circuit concluded that the prosecution history exchange precluded NG from recapturing what was previously surrendered. They were also not persuaded by NG's argument that the amendment did not read a limitation into the term. The court determined that other parts of the wig grip apparatus (including the two securement members) cannot extend beyond the forward periphery of the mesh element.
NG argued for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, but the Federal Circuit held that prosecution history estoppel barred this argument. NG's statement that the mesh section extension to the forward edge was a distinguishing feature "undermines NG's contention" in the Federal Circuit's view. The Federal Circuit's decision to apply prosecution history estoppel to NG's doctrine of equivalents argument affirmed the district court's judgment.
Regarding the specific outcome concerning NG's argument on the doctrine of equivalents, there are no relevant search results available. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of careful wording during patent prosecution and the application of prosecution history estoppel in infringement disputes.
