Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates

Wilson (plaintiff) sued David Geoffrey & Associates (DGA) and Dunlop (defendants) for infringing its '168 patent, which claimed a golf ball with a particular dimple configuration. The prior art included the very similar Uniroyal Ball, which differed only slightly, and a British patent disclosing a related method of dividing a ball's surface. The DGA/Dunlop balls did not exactly match the '168 patent's configuration. A jury found four of the defendants' balls infringed under the doctrine of equivalents, and the defendants appealed.

Whether an accused device that is merely an obvious variation of the prior art can fall within the scope of the doctrine of equivalents.