A finding of literal infringement requires that every limitation within a claim is found in the accused device. In Re Gabapentin Pat. Litig. , 503 F.3d 1254, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When both parties move for summary judgment, each motion is considered on its own merits and all reasonable inferences are resolved against the party whose motion is under consideration on any particular issue. Gart , 254 F.3d at 1338-39.

A finding of literal infringement requires that every limitation within a claim is found in the accused device. In Re Gabapentin Pat. Litig., 503 F.3d 1254, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When both parties move for summary judgment, each motion is considered on its own merits and all reasonable inferences are resolved against the party whose motion is under consideration on any particular issue. Gart, 254 F.3d at 1338-39.

"Those determinations are questions of fact, and on summary judgment, the issue is whether there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding infringement." In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 503 F.3d 1254, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). "Literal infringement requires that each and every claim limitation be present in the accused product."

To exclude another from her patent, a patentee must establish infringement by showing that every claim limitation or its equivalent in her patent can be found in the accused product. See In re Gabapentin Pat. Litig., 503 F.3d 1254, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

'First, the court determines the scope and meaning of a the patent claims asserted . . . . [Second,] the properly construed claims are compared to the allegedly infringing device.'" In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 503 F.3d 1254, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) (alteration in original). American Pacific alleges Mr. Yerrou sold tires manufactured using its own proprietary mold, which the '895 Design Patent covers.

A determination as to summary judgment of patent infringement requires a two-step analysis. In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 503 F.3d 1254, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). First, the Court construes the claims; second, the Court compares the accused product or process to the properly construed claims.

To establish infringement, plaintiffs must prove that each claim element is present in the accused product. In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation, 503 F.3d 1254, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Dawn Equipment Co. v. Kentucky Farms Inc., 140 F.3d 1009, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 1998). "Direct infringement requires a party to perform or use each and every step or element of a claimed method or product."

See, e.g., In re Gabapentin Patent Litig. 503 F.3d 1254, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (accepting district court's construction because it "gives full meaning to every word of the entire claim term"); Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (refusing construction that would leave a claim term with no meaning). Further, as a corollary rule, the Federal Circuit has sensibly held that "[i]n the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connote different meanings."

Second, Warner-Lambert determined that certain adjuvants that reduce the stability of gabapentin must be avoided in the preparation process. See In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 503 F.3d 1254, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). B. Neurontin And The Neurontin Market

The determination of infringement is a two-step process, wherein the court first construes the claims and then determines whether every claim limitation, or its equivalent, is found in the accused device. In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 503 F.3d 1254, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). While claim construction is a question of law that we review de novo, Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc), non-infringement under the reverse doctrine of equivalents is a question of fact. SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 1985).