#doctrine-of-equivalents

#doctrine-of-equivalents

Ask a lay person what pH 13 means and you will get a straightforward answer: very basic, near the top of the 14-point scale. Ask a PhD patent attorney in a Hatch-Waxman dispute the same question and the answer becomes: it depends.

On February 2, 2026, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joshua D. Wolson, sitting by designation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, made several key summary judgment rulings in advance of trial in Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and Genevant Sciences GmbH (collectively "Arbutus") v. Moderna, Inc. and ModernaTx, Inc. (collectively " Moderna "), No. 1:22-cv-00252 (D. Del.).

Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG), Inc. v. Opti-Luxx Inc., No. 2024-1616 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2025). Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Dyk reversed a jury verdict finding that Opti-Luxx's illuminated school bus sign infringed SMG's U.S. Patent No. 11,348,491 under the doctrine of equivalents. The appellate court held that no reasonable jury could find the accused product's frame performed the same function as that claimed.