Primos, Inc. v. Hunter’s Specialties, Inc., et al.

(Fed Cir. 2006, 05-1001) 

Primos had filed suit in 2001 against Hunter’s Specialties for infringement of two of Primos’s “game call” patents.  On appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, the CAFC affirmed the construction of the term “engaging” in finding literal infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 5,520,567 (the ‘567 patent), and also found infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 5,415,578 (the ‘578 patent) under the doctrine of equivalents. 

The relevant claim in the ‘578 patent recited “. . . a second roof-of-mouth engaging portion extending upwardly from the frame . . . .”  The relevant claim in the ‘567 patent recited “. . . a plate having a length, the plate extending generally upward from the frame . . . .”  The accused device sold by Hunter’s was a diaphragm mouth call device having a dome (not a plate) extending above a membrane.

They Invented What? (No. 4)

U.S. Pat. No. 5,058,833: Spaceship to harness radiations in interstellar flights

                                        

What I claim is:

1. A craft for flight in the atmosphere or space, comprising a cylindrical body having a front end and a rear end, propulsion means positioned in said rear end, and a propeller mounted about a shaft extending from said front end, said propeller being rotatable about and independent of said shaft.