## Facts

- A seller of nonprescription eyeglasses owned patents covering eyeglass display systems that allow customers to try on glasses and return them to a rack without removing the hangers.
- The patents included claims directed to combinations of eyeglasses and hanger components, including means-plus-function limitations such as “fastening means” and “eyeglass hanger member.”
- A competitor marketed similar eyeglass display systems with different hanger structures and was accused of infringing several patents, as well as infringing trademark and trade dress and engaging in unfair competition.
- The district court construed certain limitations as means-plus-function terms governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, limiting scope to disclosed structures in the specification and their § 112 ¶ 6 equivalents.
- A jury found patent infringement (literal infringement on one patent and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents on others) and also found trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and personal liability for the competitor’s CEO.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly construed the asserted patent claims, including means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings of patent infringement under the correct claim construction, either literally (including § 112 ¶ 6 equivalents) or under the doctrine of equivalents.
3. Whether § 112 ¶ 6 “equivalents” (for literal infringement of means-plus-function claims) are distinct from the doctrine of equivalents.
4. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings of trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition.
5. Whether the evidence supported personal liability of the corporate officer for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of patent infringement, concluding that any claim-construction errors were harmless because substantial evidence supported infringement under the correct construction.
- The court clarified that § 112 ¶ 6 equivalents and the doctrine of equivalents are distinct; § 112 ¶ 6 equivalents define literal scope for means-plus-function limitations, while the doctrine of equivalents may extend beyond literal coverage.
- The court reversed the judgments for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition for lack of substantial evidence.
- The court reversed the judgment imposing personal liability on the corporate officer due to insufficient evidence to disregard the corporate form or otherwise justify officer liability.

## Legal Principles

- Means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 are limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification and their § 112 ¶ 6 equivalents.
- § 112 ¶ 6 “equivalents” are part of literal infringement analysis for means-plus-function claim scope; they are not the same as the doctrine of equivalents.
- The doctrine of equivalents is a separate infringement theory that may apply even where an accused product avoids literal infringement, including literal scope informed by § 112 ¶ 6.
- Jury findings on non-patent claims (trademark, trade dress, unfair competition) must be supported by substantial evidence; absent such evidence, judgment cannot stand.
- Personal liability of a corporate officer for infringement under § 271(a) requires evidence sufficient to justify piercing the corporate veil or comparable grounds beyond ordinary corporate decision-making.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit sustained the patent infringement verdict despite claim-construction errors, drew a clear distinction between § 112 ¶ 6 equivalents and the doctrine of equivalents, and set aside the trademark/trade dress, unfair competition, and corporate-officer liability judgments for lack of evidentiary support.


Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999)