La revendication faisant l’objet du litige dans la cause Restaurant Technologies Inc. v. Jersey Shore Chicken and Klee’s Bar & Grill (Fed. Cir. 2009) inclut un “means for metering oil”. Tel que prévu, ce terme de type “mean-plus-function” est interprété de manière à couvrir les structures incluent dans le mémoire descriptif qui correspondent à celui-ci. Cependant, dans le cas présent, un seul exemple est donnée, soit “a squeezable trigger valve with a nozzle and its equivalent”.
L’élément “accusé” est un “dipstick assembly with a rotating positive displacement gear pump”. Selon la Cour, “no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the accused structure is idenetical or equivalent to the relevant disclosed structure.”
Le problème n’est pas ici l’utilisation d’un élément “means-plus-function”, mais plutôt le fait qu’un seul exemple d’un tel élément est donné dans le mémoire descriptif.
[A]lthough the dipstick assembly, in conjunction with the pump [of the accused device], may perform the identical function as the [claimed] squeezable trigger valve, the differences between the dipstick assembly plus a pump on the one hand, and a squeezable trigger valve with a nozzle, on the other, are not insubstantial. For example, the dipstick assembly and pump are activated with a push button on the dipstick assembly that energizes the pump; fluid pressure in the line then overcomes a spring-loaded check valve to pour into the fryer. The accused system thus uses a pump and fluid pressure to overcome a check valve, whereas the patent claims a valve that is squeezed.”