by Dennis Crouch
Throughout its 40-year history, the Federal Circuit has been largely negative toward the doctrine of equivalents (and exceedingly negative toward the reverse DOE). This negativity includes repeatedly taking decisions out of the jury’s hands based upon insufficient evidence of equivalency. In a new decision, a 2-1 majority continues this trend, holding that conclusory expert testimony is insufficient even for relatively simple technologies. NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 22-1815 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2024). Writing for the majority, Judge Chen affirmed the district court’s grant of JMOL overturning a jury’s DOE infringement verdict. Judge Reyna filed a sharp dissent arguing the majority imposed an unnecessarily rigid expert testimony requirement.
- Read the Decision: 22-1815.OPINION.10-24-2024_2408132