Today in VocalTag Ltd.v. Agis Automatisering B.V., __Fed. App’x __ (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2016)(Stoll, J.), following long-standing precedent, the panel affirmed a conclusion of noninfringement of a “means”-defined claim element where the patentee had failed to present evidence of the second step of an infringement analysis:

All too often, “means”-defined terminology is utilized by the patent draftsman who only focuses on the equivalent function, without full appreciation of the second step, that to establish that an equivalent to a “means”-defined element requires that the patentee “show that the accused device has the same or equivalent structure as the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification.”

The pdf version of this note includes an excerpt from the opinion.