Epcon Gas Systems, Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
279 F.3d 1022, 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1470 (2002)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Epcon Gas Systems, Inc. (Epcon) (plaintiff) sued Bauer Compressors, Inc. (Bauer) (defendant) for patent infringement in federal court. The district court determined that claim 2 and claim 16 of the Epcon patent required analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, because claim 2, a method claim, contained a step-plus-function limitation and claim 16, an apparatus claim, contained a means-plus-function limitation. Epcon agreed with the district court that the apparatus claim included a means-plus-function limitation. However, Epcon appealed the court’s finding as to the method claim, arguing that no limitations in claim 2 were constructed in step-plus-function form. Specifically, claim 2 of the Epcon patent recited a series of steps but did not include a function or any language such as “a step for” that would indicate a step-plus-function claim. Epcon argued that because claim 2 was not written with a step-plus-function limitation, it was improperly reviewed by the district court under the framework of § 112, paragraph 6.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Linn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.