From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...
Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. Guidetech, LLC
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
707 F.3d 1342 (2013)
Facts
GuideTech, LLC (GuideTech) (plaintiff) owned three patents for circuits for measuring timing errors of digital, high-speed processor signals. The circuits contained capacitors that operated in parallel with first-current circuits. The inventor of the patents founded Brilliant Instruments, Inc. (Brilliant) (defendant) and began selling products for the same purpose but having capacitors within their first-current circuits. Brilliant sued for declaratory judgment that GuideTech’s patents were not infringed by its products. The district court construed GuideTech’s claims’ term “operatively disposed in parallel” to mean “arranged in a manner capable of forming alternative paths of current such that current can flow across one path or the other path.” Neither party disputed the construction. GuideTech’s expert conceded that Brilliant’s capacitor was within its first-current circuit and not on an alternative current flow path from the first circuit. However, the expert’s report explained how operation of Brilliant’s product was equivalent to that of GuideTech’s. Because Brilliant’s capacitor was in the first circuit and not operatively disposed in parallel with it, the district court concluded Brilliant’s product did not infringe literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Brilliant. GuideTech appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Dyk, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
