Seachange International, Inc. v. C-Cor, Inc.

Seachange and C-Cor compete in the video-on-demand server industry. Seachange holds a patent on a distributed, fault-tolerate video distribution server network. The CAFC refused to apply the doctrine of claim differentiation because of patent prosecution history; and they interpreted the limitation "network for data communications" to only point-to-point connections. The opinion also summarizes a protest (which are fairly rare in patent prosecution). The CAFC revered the finding of infringement because Seachange stipulated that C-Cor did not literally infringe and, because of the prosecution history, applying the doctrine of equivalents would "vitiate an entire claim limitation".
Listen to the CAFC's published opinion. [MP3]