In This Issue:

• Doctrine of Equivalents: What Constitutes a Disclosed but not Claimed Equivalent?

• When “Each” Means “Every”: Apple Loses a Round in Its Ongoing Battle with Samsung

• Capturing Advances in Technology Under the Doctrine of Equivalents

• Is a “Height Adjustment Mechanism” a Definite Structure, or a Means-Plus- Function?

• PTO Invalidity Ruling Stands Despite Prior Court Ruling of No Invalidity

- Excerpt from PTO Invalidity Ruling Stands Despite Prior Court Ruling of No Invalidity:

In In Re Baxter International, Inc. [Order], Appeal No. 2011-1073, the Federal Circuit denied petitions for rehearing. A competitor challenged the validity of certain claims of one of Baxter’s patents in district court and also requested reexamination of the patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the claims were not invalid. After the Federal Circuit’s decision, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the “Board”) affirmed the reexamination examiner’s rejection of the same claims as obvious. Baxter appealed the Board’s decision to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the Board because the obviousness rejections were supported by substantial evidence. Judge Newman dissented...