product to be surrendered subject matter, the doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to claim infringement by that product. Schwing GmbH v. Putzmeister Aktiengesellschaft, 305 F.3d 1318, 1324-25 (Fed.Cir.2002). TIP Systems’s arguments are not persuasive. “The doctrine of equivalents cannot be employed in a manner that wholly vitiates a claim limitation.” Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293, 1309 (Fed.Cir.2007) (citing SciMed Life Sys., 242 F.3d at 1346). See, e.g., Forest Labs., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 239 F.3d 1305, 1313 (Fed.Cir.2001) (finding that the patentee’s argument that a limitation on the percentages of water in a composition was “irrelevant” when compared to the accused composition vitiated that limitation); Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1160 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126
recognizing that a principal may limit the authority of its agent and such limitation will be binding on a third party who is aware of the limitation holding that the patentees argument that any shape would be equivalent to the conical limitation would write such a limitation out of the claim holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant holding that limitation of liability clause was unambiguous holding that congress intended no limitation on coverage of statute where the text contained no modifier or exception or other suggestion of any such limitation