No Patent Infringement Because Mechanical and Magnetic Latches Were Not Section 112, Para. 6 Equivalents -- General Protecht Group, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n 2009 - 1378 -- On August 27 in an opinion by Judge Dyk, the Federal Circuit reversed an ITC finding that General Protecht products infringed patents owned by intervenor Pass & Seymour.  The patents were for electrical receptacles found in bathrooms and kitchens designed to trip when a ground fault is detected.  One patent claimed a device including a “latching means,” which the specification described in mechanical terms.  In contrast, General Protecht’s products used magnetic latches.  The Federal Circuit, applying Patent Act section 112, paragraph 6, did not find substantial evidence that the magnetic latch was an equivalent.  Judge Newman dissented, arguing the court erred in relying on a prior case involving mechanical and magnetic latches.  The court decided companion case 2009 - 1338 the same day.