‘argument,’ really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim.... Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”). 2. Doctrine of Equivalents [8-10] Even where there is no literal infringement, a product or process may infringe “if there is ‘equivalence’ between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed element of the patented invention.” Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co. 520 U.S. 17, 21, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997). Under the doctrine of equivalents, the product or process must still contain each limitation of the claim to infringe. Freedman Seating Co. v. American Seating Co., 420 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2005). See also AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 419 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). Because each limitation contained in a patent
holding that plaintiffs infringement claim against defendants laterdeveloped product would be barred by laches and estoppel found applicable to earlier product if subsequent product is equivalent to earlier one under doctrine of equivalents holding that while the complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations it must contain more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of a claim and must state a claim that is plausible on its face holding that to constitute infringement under the doctrine of equivalents the accused product must contain each limitation of the claim or its equivalent holding that the objective prong for willful infringement is generally not met where an accused infringer relies on a reasonable defense to a charge of infringement holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the protection of the work product doctrine