Warner Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Richard G. Taranto (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
David E. Schmit (Argued the cause for the respondent)
Lawrence G. Wallace (On behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
95-728
Petitioner: 
Warner Jenkinson Co., Inc.
Respondent: 
Hilton Davis Chemical Co.
Opinion: 
520 U.S. 17 (1997)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Warner Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. , 520 U.S. 17 (1997)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_728)
Facts of the Case: 

Warner Jenkinson Co. and Hilton Davis Chemical Co. both manufacture dyes from which impurities must be removed. Davis's "'746 patent," which was issued in 1985, discloses an improved purification process involving the "ultrafiltration" of dye through a porous membrane at pH levels between 6.0 and 9.0. In 1986, Jenkinson developed its own ultrafiltration process, which operated at a pH level of 5.0. Davis sued for infringement of the '746 patent. Davis's suit relied solely on the "doctrine of equivalents," under which a product or process that does not literally infringe upon the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is an "equivalence" between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented invention. Jenkinson argued that the Patent Act of 1952 had supplanted the doctrine. Ultimately, the District Court entered a permanent injunction against Jenkinson after a jury had found that Jenkinson had infringed upon the '746 patent. The en banc Court of Appeals held that the doctrine of equivalents continues to exist and that the jury had substantial evidence from which to conclude that petitioner's process was not substantially different from the process disclosed in the '746 patent.

Question: 

Is the "doctrine of equivalents" a legitimate test for determining how similar a new invention must be to an existing patent to be deemed an illegal infringement?

Conclusion: 

Yes. In a decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court ruled that it adheres to the "doctrine of equivalents," which is not superseded by the Patent Act of 1952. However, the Court held that the Court of Appeals had not considered all of the requirements of the doctrine of equivalents as described by the Court in this case on which the case was reversed and remanded.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Warner Jenkinson Co., Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority, joined Ginsburg's concurrence
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote the majority opinion
Thomas
Wrote a regular concurrence
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas