top of page
Search

Plastic Omnium Advanced v. Donghee American, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 2019)

Interpreting the term "parison" to be limited to a plastic tube that is outside the extruder is correct. Thus, the claimed method including "cutting and opening an extruded parison" (or "extruding a parison" and later "cutting through said parison") does not capture Donghee's process in which the plastic is cut from within a second flat die tool that is part of the extrusion equipment.


Moreover, the claimed step does not read on Donghee's process under the doctrine of equivalents because the two methods do not perform substantially the same function - Donghee's process allows independent control of the wall thickness while the patentee's process emphasizes uniform wall thickness as an advantage.


Read the case here.


Recent Posts

See All

U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi

Post by Paul Serbinowski What must the specification disclose to enable broad functional claim language? A week ago in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the U.S. Supreme Court considered what the specification mu

Comments


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page