does not argue that Lamson’s ribless outlet covers literally infringe the '135 patent. Furthermore, as discussed above, Intermatic is not entitled to any range of equivalents with respect to the “within the aperture” limitation. The district court therefore did not err in granting summary judgment in Intermatic II that Lamson’s ribless outlet covers do not infringe the '135 patent. D. Invalidity Although we have determined that none of Lamson’s products infringe the '135 patent, Lamson has asserted a counterclaim of invalidity in the form of a request for a declaratory judgment. Our determination of noninfringement does not make Lamson’s counterclaim moot, see Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int’l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 96, 113 S.Ct. 1967, 124 L.Ed.2d 1, 26 USPQ2d 1721, 1727 (1993) (<HOLDING>), and we therefore must address the
holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in considering merits of state law counterclaim that formed part of the same case as federal counterclaim even though court had dismissed federal counterclaim quoting 28 usc  1367a holding property owner not entitled to award of attorneys fees under declaratory judgments act because his declaratory judgment counterclaim did not present any issues beyond the homeowners associations cause of action holding that a finding of noninfringement does not moot a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity holding that insured who brought third party action against insurer could recover costs incurred in defending insurers counterclaim for declaratory relief since the insureds posture in the counterclaim was that of a defendant