OBTAINING DEFENSIBLE PATENTS IN THE PST INDUSTRY
|
|
- Job Singleton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 OBTAINING DEFENSIBLE PATENTS IN THE PST INDUSTRY Mark P. Levy, Intellectual Property Practice Group Leader, Thompson Hine LLP., Dayton, Ohio I. The name of the game is the claim. As Judge Rich, one of the most respected Judges on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, pointed out while explaining American patent law to a group of European judges, the "name of the game is the claim." Giles Rich, The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims -- American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990). The claims are those numbered paragraphs that appear at the end of a U.S. patent that define the metes and bounds of the invention. Judge Rich's statement rings all the more true today. II. The infringement analysis. A determination of infringement requires a two-step analysis. Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1476, 45 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1498, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1998). First, the claim must be properly construed to determine its scope and meaning. Second, the claim as properly construed must be compared to the accused device or process. A patent can be infringed literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. When a patent is infringed literally, the infringing product or activity falls within the literal scope of the patent claims. However, if a infringer's product or process does not fall within the literal scope of the claims in a patent but differs in a manner that can be characterized as "insubstantial," the patent may be infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc., et al., v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. 520 U.S. 17; 117 S. Ct. 1040; 137 L. Ed. 2d 146; 1997 U.S. LEXIS 1476 (1997). The doctrine of equivalents prevents an accused infringer from avoiding infringement by changing only minor or insubstantial details of a claimed invention while retaining their essential functionality. Fifteen years ago, patent owners could take substantial consolation in the doctrine of equivalents. If an infringer's activity fell outside the literal scope of the claims, the doctrine of equivalents was, by comparison to today, fairly liberally available to prevent infringers from violating a patent,. This is no longer the case. Today the courts are construing patents more much literally and today the courts are much more conservative in applying the doctrine of equivalents. In particular, today the courts with increasing regularity are placing emphasis on the "notice function" of patent claims. Thus the courts are balancing industry's need to be able to rely upon the literal language of the claims so as to be able to reasonably predict whether a proposed commercial activity infringes against the patentee's need for some flexibility in its claims to protect his or her invention against the copyist, and the today that balance is clearly favoring reliance upon the notice function of the claims. This does not mean that the doctrine of equivalents is dead but that it is being applied in fewer cases to a narrower range of activities.
2 III. Patent prosecution estoppel. The doctrine of equivalents has been narrowed by an expansion of the doctrine of file history or patent prosecution estoppel. The U.S. Supreme Court in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 741, 122 S. Ct. 1831, 152 L. Ed. 2d 944 (2002) held that when a claim is narrowed during prosecution, it creates a presumption that the patentee has surrendered, for purposes of the doctrine of equivalents, all subject matter falling between the scope of the original claim and the scope of the claim as amended. IV. First recommendation do not over-claim the invention. It has been common practice to file patent applications with relatively broad claims that test the limits of the scope of protection that the patent applicant may be entitled to and to wait for the patent examiner to challenge the claims. If an applicant is lucky and the application is examined by an examiner who is very lenient, the applicant may obtain a patent that puts the industry on its heels. However, as a result of the Festo case, there can be serious adverse consequences for the patent applicant who tries to "claim the world" and is not successful. Specifically, if the application is filed with very broad claims and those claims are narrowed substantially as a result of teachings in the prior art or as a result of lack of sufficient enabling technical information in the patent to support the claims, under the Festo ruling the amended limitations in the claims can not be expanded under the doctrine of equivalents. The patent applicant would have been better off to have filed his patent application with narrower claims of an appropriate scope that did not require amendment than to have claimed the world and failed. To illustrate this point, consider two patents that have identical claims: one patent having issued from a broad application with narrowly amended claims, and the other patent having issued from an application with narrow but unamended claims. The second patent would be more valuable than the first because the first patentee is estopped by his narrowing amendments to rely upon the doctrine of equivalents, whereas the second-narrow patentee is not estopped and is entitled to broader protection than his claims literally provide under the doctrine of equivalents. Accordingly, our first recommendation in terms of preparing defensible patents is to understand the teachings in the prior art and to present claims that one is reasonably confident will be allowed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office without amendment. In this way, one can avoid estoppels by amendment and preserve one's rights under the doctrine of equivalents. V. Second recommendation avoid making statements about the invention as a whole. It is also important in preparing a patent application to be careful how one describes and characterizes the invention. In fact, in preparing a patent application, it is a good idea to remember the Miranda warning, i.e., anything you say can and will be used against you. In particular it is important to be very careful in referring to "the invention." Indeed, some patent practitioners suggest that the word "invention" should not appear in a patent application! While this seems radical, the patent applicant must be very careful in making any blanket statements regarding the invention as a whole because these statements may be interpreted by the court as a limitation on the scope of the invention. It is preferable for the patent applicant to describe the invention with respect to specific "embodiments" of his or her invention as opposed to the invention as a whole because unequivocal statements defining or narrowly characterizing "the
3 invention" may be used by the infringer to promote a narrow claim construction. By contrast, a statement regarding an "embodiment of the invention" is not as likely to be attributed to or considered as a characterization of the invention and is less dangerous. One practice that is no longer recommended when preparing patents is disclosing a list of the objects of the invention. This is because these objects are typically a series of blanket statements regarding the invention as a whole that can mislead a court to adopt a narrow definition of the invention. These objects can be "read into the claims" as limitations. See Terlep v. Brinkmann Corp WL (Fed. Cir. 2005). For example if you define an object of the invention as providing a tape having a unique adhesion characteristic and yet there are certain embodiments in which the tapes that do not provide such an adhesion characteristic, the claims may be construed by the court as being limited to tapes having the adhesion characteristic. Alternatively, the patent may be challenged on the basis that the claimed invention does not deliver the promised improvement. VI. Third recommendation scrutinize every word in the claim. Within the last year, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified the role of dictionaries in construing the terms of a patent claim in Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 Fed. Cir Prior to Philips, there were two approaches to using dictionaries in construing patent claims. Under one, you started with the generally accepted dictionary or treatise definition of a claim term and then looked to the patent specification to see if there was a compelling reason to use a different definition. Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc. 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Under the other, you looked to the patent specification to define the term and then, if necessary, consulted dictionaries and treatises. Alloc, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 342 F.3d 1361, (Fed. Cir. 2003). In Phillips, the Federal Circuit held that claim terms are interpreted based upon so called intrinsic evidence, i.e., the patent specification and the patent file history, although dictionaries may be consulted as part of the process. Specifically, the Court observed that: "The person of ordinary skill in the art (the person to whom the patent is addressed) is deemed to read the claim not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification." "General purpose dictionaries may be helpful in cases where the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art would be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involve little more than application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words." The Court established the following hierarchy for analyzing the terms of the claims: The words of the claims themselves (being highly instructive) The remainder of the specification (always highly relevant)
4 The prosecution history (less useful for claim construction but often informative) Extrinsic evidence (deemed less reliable but helpful to enable a court to better understand the underlying technology and the way in which one of skill in the art might use claim terms). In the Philips case, this analysis actually resulted in the claims in that case being construed somewhat broader than some practitioners might have predicted. The Philips case involved a wall construction incorporating a series of baffles. The alleged infringer urged that the term "baffles" as used in the claims should be construed so as not to include flanges oriented perpendicular to the reinforced wall. The infringer used a perpendicular orientation. The infringer argued that the application attributed a bullet deflecting function to the flanges and because a perpendicular flange would not be capable of deflecting bullets, it should not be considered a flange. The term "baffles" was referred to repeatedly in the specification of the Philips patent (U.S. Patent 4,677,798) as being able to deflect projectiles as a result of their being disposed at angles which tend to deflect bullets, i.e., angles other than 90 degrees. The District Court had agreed with the infringer and held that perpendicular flangers did not infringe the patent because these flangers were not capable to deflecting bullets. However, the Federal Circuit disagreed. Employing the foregoing analysis, The Federal Circuit court held that the term "baffles" as used in the claims could not be construed as excluding structures oriented perpendicular to the wall. In reaching its decision the court reasoned that the term baffles in the broad independent claims should not be construed so narrowly as to render the remaining dependent claims meaningless. Recent decisions of the Federal Circuit have also adopted another doctrine that yields narrow claim constructions and that is the doctrine of claim limitation vitiation or the principle of specific exclusion. This line of cases in some degree conflicts with our first recommendation above. Specifically, under this doctrine, a claim can not be expanded under the doctrine of equivalents if the effect of that expansion would be to effectively nullify, vitiate, or contradict an express limitation of the claims. An earlier case employing this doctrine is Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d 1154, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In that case, the Court held that a claim that included an element having a conical shape was not infringed by a device having a hemispherical shape since this would effectively "write the 'generally conical' limitation out of the claim." More recently, in the case of Durel Corporation v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., 256 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the Federal Circuit held that a claim to a metal oxide could not be infringed by a claim to a metal hydroxide since a hydroxide can not be an oxide. In Tanabe Seiyaku Co. v. United States ITC, 109 F.3d 726 (Fed. Cir.1997) the applicant filed his application and obtained a patent directed to a process for producing a pharmaceutical by a process that employed acetone as a solvent in an alkylation reaction. The infringer used butanone as a solvent. When the patentee attempted to claim infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the court found the evidence insufficient to establish that butanone was readily interchangeable with acetone and held there was no infringment.
5 In cases applying the doctrine of claim limitation vitiation, the Federal Circuit has noted that the patent applicant holds the pen. If the patent applicant desires broader protection, the applicant is in a position to define his or her invention appropriately. In Sage Prods. v. Devon Indus., 126 F.3d 1420, 1425 (Fed. Cir. 1997) the court explained the principle this way: If Sage desired broad patent protection for any container that performed a function similar to its claimed container, it could have sought claims with fewer structural encumbrances. Instead, Sage left the PTO with manifestly limited claims that it now seeks to expand through the doctrine of equivalents. However, as between the patentee who had a clear opportunity to negotiate broader claims but did not do so, and the public at large, it is the patentee who must bear the cost of its failure to seek protection for this foreseeable alteration of its claimed structure. In summary, recent decisions from the Federal Circuit regarding the construction of patent claims and the application of the doctrine of equivalents place a premium on artfully drafting and prosecuting the claims of a patent. Claim strategies should be very carefully studied and determined upon filing patent applications. The benefits of broad patent claims need to be offset against the risks of patent prosecution estoppel. Similarly the language used in the patent claims must be carefully analyzed in light of the patent specification to identify statements or disclosures that could lead to the claims being more narrowly construed than the applicant may have intended
The Comment: The Impact of Major Changes by the Federal Circuit in the Law Affecting Claim Scope
Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 54 Issue 3 2004 The Comment: The Impact of Major Changes by the Federal Circuit in the Law Affecting Claim Scope Gerald Sobel Follow this and additional works at:
More informationThe Scope of Patents. Claim Construction & Patent Infringement. Introduction to Intellectual Property Law & Policy Professor Wagner
The Scope of Patents Claim Construction & Patent Infringement Introduction to Intellectual Property Law & Policy Professor Wagner Lecture Agenda Claim Construction (Literal) Patent Infringement The Doctrine
More informationOLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Since 1957 500 MEMORIAL ST. POST OFFICE BOX 2049 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702-2049 (919) 683-5514 GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement
More informationBaffled: Phillips v. AWH Corp. and the Reexamination of Dictionary Use in Patent Claim Interpretation
NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY Volume 6 Issue 1 Fall 2004 Article 9 10-1-2004 Baffled: Phillips v. AWH Corp. and the Reexamination of Dictionary Use in Patent Claim Interpretation Daniel S.
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings
Question Q229 National Group: United States Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: ADAMO, Kenneth R. ARROYO, Blas ASHER, Robert BAIN, Joseph MEUNIER, Andrew
More informationPatent Claim Construction: Phillips v. AWH (Fed. Cir., July 12, 2005) (en banc) Edward D. Manzo August Patent in Suit
Patent Claim Construction: Phillips v. AWH (Fed. Cir., July 12, 2005) (en banc) Edward D. Manzo August 2005 Patent in Suit 1 Patent in Suit Claim 1 1. Building modules adapted to fit together for construction
More informationTHE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF PATENT ATTORNEYS IN IMPROVING THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS *
Copyright (c) 2000 PTC Research Foundation of Franklin Pierce Law Center IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology 2000 40 IDEA 123 THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF PATENT ATTORNEYS IN IMPROVING THE DOCTRINE
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN
THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN June 20, 2002 On May 28, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its longawaited decision in Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 1 vacating the landmark
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY In Phillips v. AWH, the En Banc Federal Circuit Refocuses Claim Construction on a Patent s Intrinsic Evidence July 29, 2005 In perhaps its most anticipated decision since Markman
More informationCrafting & Drafting Winning Patents. Course Syllabus
I. OVERVIEW CHAPTER A. Crafting and Drafting a Winning Patent Is Shockingly More Difficult to Achieve Than Ever Before B. The Major Source of the Aggravated Difficulty de novo Review of Claim Construction
More informationDesigning Around Valid U.S. Patents Course Syllabus
Chapter 1: COOKBOOK PROCEDURE AND BLUEPRINT FOR DESIGNING AROUND : AVOIDING LITERAL INFRINGEMENT Literal Infringement Generally Claim Construction Under Markman 1. Claim Interpretation Before Markman 2.
More informationHow (Not) to Discourage the Unscrupulous Copyist
How (Not) to Discourage the Unscrupulous Copyist PETER LUDWIG October 2009 ABSTRACT This article explores how the U.S. and Japanese courts implement the doctrine of equivalence when determining patent
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
CORRECTED: OCTOBER 29, 2003 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 99-1421 TALBERT FUEL SYSTEMS PATENTS CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNOCAL CORPORATION, UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA,
More informationComments on: Request for Comments on Preparation of Patent Applications, 78 Fed. Reg (January 15, 2013)
The Honorable Teresa Stanek Rea Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office United States Patent and Trademark Office
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1337 STEPHEN K. TERLEP, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, THE BRINKMANN CORP., WAL-MART STORES, INC., and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendants-Appellees.
More informationHOW (NOT) TO DISCOURAGE THE UNSCRUPULOUS COPYIST
HOW (NOT) TO DISCOURAGE THE UNSCRUPULOUS COPYIST Peter Ludwig * Abstract... 157 I. Introduction... 157 II. The United States and the Doctrine of Equivalents... 158 III. Japan and the Doctrine of Equivalents...
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1429 RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED, v. Plaintiffs-Appellees, APOTEX, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Darrell L. Olson,
More informationWarner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton-Davis Chemical Co.:
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton-Davis Chemical Co.: Apt Reconciliation of Supreme Court Precedent, and Reasoned Instruction to a Trusted Federal Circuit 1997 by Charles W. Shifley and Lance Johnson On March
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1074 SCHWARZ PHARMA, INC. and SCHWARZ PHARMA AG, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PADDOCK LABORATORIES,
More informationFixing Festo: How the Foreseeability Test for the Doctrine of Equivalents Punishes Innovation (and What to Do about It)
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 7/17/2007 Fixing Festo/Page 1 Fixing Festo: How the Foreseeability Test for the Doctrine of Equivalents Punishes Innovation (and What to Do about It) Gary Pulsinelli * Introduction...2
More information9 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Winter Articles
9 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 159 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Winter 2001 Articles THE SCOPE OF CLAIM AMENDMENTS, PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL, AND THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AFTER FESTO VI Peter
More informationFesto X: The Complete Bar by Another Name
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 19 Issue 1 Article 7 January 2004 Festo X: The Complete Bar by Another Name Marc D. Sharp Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1414 BIAGRO WESTERN SALES, INC. and THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, GROW MORE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
More informationCrafting & Drafting Winning Patents Course Syllabus
Crafting & Drafting Winning Patents Course Syllabus I. PROFESSOR KAYTON S OVERVIEW CHAPTER A. Crafting and Drafting a Winning Patent Is Shockingly More Difficult to Achieve Than Ever Before B. The Major
More informationPhillips v. AWH Corporation Revisiting the Rules of Claim Construction: Still No Magic Formula
Phillips v. AWH Corporation Revisiting the Rules of Claim Construction: Still No Magic Formula july 13, 2005 Overview Patent infringement cases worth tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars often
More informationHarvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 16, Number 2 Spring Raj S. Davé*
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 16, Number 2 Spring 2003 A MATHEMATICAL APPROACH TO CLAIM ELEMENTS AND THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS Raj S. Davé* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OVERVIEW...508 II. ORIGIN
More informationTHE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AND 112 EQUIVALENTS
CHAPTER 8 THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AND 112 EQUIVALENTS Glen P. Belvis 8.01 Overview of the Doctrine of Equivalents and 112, 6 Equivalents 8.02 The Doctrine of Equivalents 8.03 Prosecution History Estoppel
More informationClaiming what counts in business: drafting patent claims with a clear business purpose
Claiming what counts in business: drafting patent claims with a clear business purpose By Soonwoo Hong, Counsellor, SMEs Division, WIPO 1. Introduction An increasing number of IP savvy businesses have
More informationMinnesota Intellectual Property Review. Paul C. Onderick. Volume 4 Issue 1 Article 3
Minnesota Intellectual Property Review Volume 4 Issue 1 Article 3 2002 Narrowing Claim Amendment or Just Redefining the Invention: Prosecution History Estoppel and the Doctrine of Equivalents under TurboCare
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-1348-N ORDER
Case 3:14-cv-01348-N Document 95 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 3285 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION LAKESOUTH HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action
More informationHow (Not) to Discourage the Unscrupulous Copyist
The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Intellectual Property Journal Akron Law Journals March 2016 How (Not) to Discourage the Unscrupulous Copyist Peter Ludwig Please take a moment to share
More informationDoctrine of Equivalents: Scope & Limitations
Journal of Intellectual Property Right Vol 12, May 2007, pp 314-329 Doctrine of Equivalents: Scope & Limitations Divya Patodia, Shashank Jain & Uphar Shukla Symbiosis Society s Law College, Senapati Bapat
More informationIn-line or Insane? The Federal Circuit's Recent Interpretation of Festo in Honeywell v. Hamilton Sundstrand
Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 4 Issue 1 Fall Article 5 Fall 2005 In-line or Insane? The Federal Circuit's Recent Interpretation of Festo in Honeywell v. Hamilton Sundstrand
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 7 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1475 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
More informationTHE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AND 112 EQUIVALENTS
CHAPTER 3 THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AND 112 EQUIVALENTS Glen P. Belvis 3.01 Overview of the Doctrine of Equivalents and 112 Equivalents 3.02 The Doctrine of Equivalents 3.03 Prosecution History Estoppel
More informationIN SEARCH OF A (NARROWER) MEANING
IN SEARCH OF A (NARROWER) MEANING RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION NIKA ALDRICH OSB Intellectual Property Section August 3, 2016 Nika Aldrich Of Counsel IP Litigation 503-796-2494 Direct
More informationS A M P L E Q U E S T I O N S April 2002
P A T E N T L A W L A W 6 7 7 P R O F E S S O R W A G N E R S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 April 2002 These five multiple choice questions (based on a fact pattern used in the Spring 2001 Patent Law Final Exam) are
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-1452-N ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-01452-N Document 69 Filed 03/20/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2121 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SHIRE LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-1452-N
More informationPatent Damages Post Festo
Page 1 of 6 Patent Damages Post Festo Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Law360, New
More informationNo In The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. FESTO CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
No. 00-1543 In The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FESTO CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO., LTD., a/k/a SMC CORP. and SMC Pneumatics, Inc., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationPRUDENT PATENT PROSECUTION UNDER FESTO. By: Robert H. Resis
PRUDENT PATENT PROSECUTION UNDER FESTO By: Robert H. Resis I. INTRODUCTION On May 28, 2002, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kabushiki Co, 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.
More informationInfringement, Doctrine of equivalents & prosecution history estoppel
Infringement, Doctrine of equivalents & prosecution history estoppel Mr.Sumesh Reddy- 1 Patent rights Right to exclude others A patent is not a grant of a right to make, use or sell. Atlas Powder Co. v.
More informationReexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective
Reexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective AIPLA 2007 Spring Meeting June 22, 2007 Jeffrey M. Fisher, Esq. Farella Braun + Martel LLP jfisher@fbm.com 04401\1261788.1
More informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS IN PHILLIPS V. AWH THAT INTRINSIC EVIDENCE IS MORE RELIABLE THAN DICTIONARIES AND OTHER EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE FOR CONSTRUING CLAIMS
FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS IN PHILLIPS V. AWH THAT INTRINSIC EVIDENCE IS MORE RELIABLE THAN DICTIONARIES AND OTHER EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE FOR CONSTRUING CLAIMS July 25, 2005 Introduction On July 12, 2005, the Federal
More informationProsecution History Estoppel in the Post-Festo Era: The Increased Importance of Determining What Constitutes a Relevant Narrowing Claim Amendment
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 20 Issue 1 Article 10 January 2005 Prosecution History Estoppel in the Post-Festo Era: The Increased Importance of Determining What Constitutes a Relevant Narrowing
More informationFORESEEABILITY AS A BAR TO THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS*
FORESEEABILITY AS A BAR TO THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS* Jeremy T. Marr* I. INTRODUCTION The common-law doctrine of equivalents extends a patent's protection to cover certain similar devices that do not
More informationTHE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AND 112 EQUIVALENTS Overview of the Doctrine of Equivalents and 112, 6 Equivalents
CHAPTER 8 THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AND 112 EQUIVALENTS Glen P. Belvis 8.01 Overview of the Doctrine of Equivalents and 112, 6 Equivalents 8.02 The Doctrine of Equivalents 8.03 Prosecution History Estoppel
More informationMID-AMERICA BUILDING PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a division of Tapco International Corporation, Plaintiff. v. RICHWOOD BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC, Defendant.
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. MID-AMERICA BUILDING PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a division of Tapco International Corporation, Plaintiff. v. RICHWOOD BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, HONEYWELL INC., Defendant-Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit HONEYWELL INC., John G. Roberts, Jr., Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief wascatherine
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS. Page FORM 9 CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST...1 IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF PARTIES...2 ARGUMENT...2
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FORM 9 CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST...1 IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF PARTIES...2 ARGUMENT...2 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...2 II. Courts Should Rely In The First Instance On The
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT YBM MAGNEX, INC. (Sucessor in interest to Crucible Materials Corporation),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 97-1409 YBM MAGNEX, INC. (Sucessor in interest to Crucible Materials Corporation), Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, and SAN
More information(Publication page references are not available for this document.) 249 F.3d 1314, 58 U.S.P.Q.2d 1671 United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Date of Download: Jun 18, 2001 CTAF (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Cases) 2001 WL 436028 Copr. West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works (Publication page references are not available
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit PACIFIC COAST MARINE WINDSHIELDS LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MALIBU BOATS, LLC, AND TRESSMARK, INC., doing business as Liquid Sports Marine,
More informationCase 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:12-cv-09002-JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JDS THERAPEUTICS, LLC; NUTRITION 21, LLC, Plaintiffs, -v- PFIZER INC.; WYETH LLC;
More informationVECTRA FITNESS, INC., TNWK CORPORATION, (formerly known as Pacific Fitness Corporation),
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 98-1192 Plaintiff-Appellant, VECTRA FITNESS, INC., v. TNWK CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. (formerly known as Pacific Fitness Corporation), Ramsey
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit RING & PINION SERVICE INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARB CORPORATION LTD., Defendant-Appellant. 2013-1238 Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit , LAITRAM CORPORATION and INTRALOX, INC.,
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 97-1422,-1582 LAITRAM CORPORATION and INTRALOX, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Defendants Cross-Appellants. v. MOREHOUSE INDUSTRIES, INC. (now Summa
More informationWang Laboratories, Inc. v. America Online, Inc. and Netscape Communications Corp.
Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 16 Issue 2 Article 14 January 2000 Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. America Online, Inc. and Netscape Communications Corp. Daniel R. Harris Janice N. Chan Follow
More informationCLAIM INTERPRETATION: A CLAIM INDEFINITENESS ANALYSIS PROPOSAL
561 CLAIM INTERPRETATION: A CLAIM INDEFINITENESS ANALYSIS PROPOSAL I. INTRODUCTION JOSEPH A. BIELA * A. One skilled in the art should not have to wait until a court interprets the language of a patent
More informationGOOGLE, INC., VEDERI, LLC, BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI. No In The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-448 In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------- --------------------------- GOOGLE, INC., v. Petitioner, VEDERI, LLC, Respondent. -------------------------- --------------------------
More informationDEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The University of Texas School of Law 16th ANNUAL ADVANCED PATENT LAW INSTITUTE DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION October 27-28, 2011 Austin, Texas Kenneth R. Adamo* Kirkland & Ellis LLP 300 N. LaSalle
More informationModel Patent Jury Instructions
Model Patent Jury Instructions prepared by The National Jury Instruction Project December 5, 2008 For Comment Members of the Project Kenneth C. Bass III Donald R. Dunner Pamela Banner Krupka Roderick R.
More informationPRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS TO BE GIVEN AT OUTSET OF TRIAL. This is a patent case. It involves U.S. Patent No[s].,, and.
PATENTS 1. Preliminary Instructions to Be Given at Outset of Trial 1.1 the Parties and the Nature of the Case....1 1.2 The Patent System....3 1.3 How a Patent Is Obtained.....5 1.4 the Parts of a Patent....7
More informationJohnson & Johnston Associates, Inc. v. R.E. Service Co.
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 18 Issue 1 Article 13 January 2003 Johnson & Johnston Associates, Inc. v. R.E. Service Co. Ashita Doshi Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 6 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1561 THE TORO COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHITE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC. and WCI OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
More informationThe Aftermath of Festo v. SMC: Is There Some Other Reason for Justifying the Third Festo Rebuttal Criterion
Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 82 Issue 3 Symposium: Intellectual Property, Trade and Development: Accommodating and Reconciling Different National Levels of Protection Article 20 June 2007 The Aftermath
More informationBerkeley Technology Law Journal
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 22 Issue 1 Article 9 January 2007 Bicon, Inc. v. Staumann Co: The Federal Circuit Specifically Excluded Claim Vitiation to Illustrate a New Limiting Principle on
More informationPatent Resources Group Federal Circuit Law Course Syllabus
I. Novelty and Loss of Right to a Patent II. III. IV. A. Anticipation 1. Court Review of PTO Decisions 2. Claim Construction 3. Anticipation Shown Through Inherency 4. Single Reference Rule Incorporation
More informationintellectual property law CARR ideas on Declaring dependence What s in a name? Get Reddy Working for statutory damages Intellectual Property Law
ideas on intellectual property law in this issue year end 2004 Declaring dependence Dependent patent claims and the doctrine of equivalents What s in a name? Triagra loses battle for trademark rights Get
More informationPlaintiff, Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------- LUMOS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., -v- JEDMED INSTRUMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff, Defendant. --------------------------------------
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1592 ANCHOR WALL SYSTEMS, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, ROCKWOOD RETAINING WALLS, INC., GLS INDUSTRIES, INC., EQUIPMENT, INC., RAYMOND R. PRICE,
More informationProsecution pt. 2; Infringement pt. 2
PATENT LAW Randy Canis CLASS 10 Prosecution pt. 2; Infringement pt. 2 1 Prosecution pt. 2 Inequitable Conduct 2 3 Duty to Disclose Rule Duty to Disclose Rule (a) Each individual associated with the filing
More information, HILL-ROM COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, KINETIC CONCEPTS, INC. and KCI THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Cross Appellants.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 99-1314, -1315 HILL-ROM COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KINETIC CONCEPTS, INC. and KCI THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Cross Appellants.
More informationToni Lee Bonney, Gary A. Ahrens, Elizabeth H. Schoettly, Michael, Best & Friedrich, Milwaukee, WI, for plaintiff or petitioner.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois. AQUA-AEROBIC SYSTEMS, INC, Plaintiff. v. AERATORS, INC., and Frank Nocifora, Defendants. June 4, 1998. Toni Lee Bonney, Gary A. Ahrens, Elizabeth H. Schoettly,
More informationBOBBING AROUND IN THE WAKE OF FESTO -- Honeywell Int'l v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.
BOBBING AROUND IN THE WAKE OF FESTO -- Honeywell Int'l v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. I. Introduction Prosecution Practice in View of the Broadening Definition of Estoppel to Application of to the Equivalents
More informationCase 1:15-cv RA Document 32 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:15-cv-04442-RA Document 32 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK USDC-SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRO NI CALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED: 08/09/2016 ANCHOR SALES
More informationDockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINL NORFOLK DIVISION BID FOR POSITION, LLC, Bid For Position,
Bid for Position, LLC v. AOL, LLC et al Doc. 88 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINL NORFOLK DIVISION BID FOR POSITION, LLC, v. Bid For Position, AOL, LLC, GOOGLE INC.,
More informationTiptoeing Through the Peripheral Minefield: Why Catering to Concepts of Notice is Misguided
Cybaris Volume 2 Issue 1 Article 5 2011 Tiptoeing Through the Peripheral Minefield: Why Catering to Concepts of Notice is Misguided Brian D. Bender Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cybaris
More informationTHE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW REDUCING THE NEED FOR MARKMAN DETERMINATIONS ROBERT H. RESIS, ESQ. ABSTRACT The uncertainty as to whether claim interpretation decisions will survive
More informationAlan M. Fisch, Kaye Scholer, LLP, Coke Morgan Stewart, David Laurent Cousineau, Jason F. Hoffman, Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
United States District Court, District of Columbia. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC, Plaintiff. v. Abdullah Ali BAHATTAB, Defendant. Civil Action No. 07-1771 (PLF)(AK) May 8, 2009. Alan M. Fisch, Kaye Scholer, LLP,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 8 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. This disposition will appear in tables published periodically. United States Court
More informationFesto Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ratcheting Down the Doctrine of Equivalents
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law Volume 17 Issue 2 Article 6 3-1-2003 Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ratcheting Down the Doctrine of Equivalents Kulaniakea Fisher Follow
More informationTHE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PATENT LAW BRADLEY C. WRIGHT Over the past year, the United States patent law has developed significantly. Numerous cases were
More informationDon t Forget That Inventorship Issues Can Be Determined in an Interference! Reyna), was a 35 USC 256 action to correct inventorship on two patents
Don t Forget That Inventorship Issues Can Be Determined in an Interference! By Charles L. Gholz 1 Hor v. Chu, F.3d, USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. November 14, 2012)(opinion by C.J. Prost, joined by C.J. Newman; concurring
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant.
1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC., vs. AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., Plaintiff, Defendant. CASE NO. 1-CV-01-H (BGS) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
More informationPATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO
PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO Robert W. Bahr Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United States Patent and Trademark Office 11/17/2016 1 The U.S. patent system
More informationAmbivalence in Equivalents: Problems and Solutions for Patent Law's Doctrine of Equivalents
Louisiana Law Review Volume 64 Number 1 Symposium on Harmless Error - Part II Fall 2003 Ambivalence in Equivalents: Problems and Solutions for Patent Law's Doctrine of Equivalents M. Aminthe Broussard
More informationThe Supreme Court's Complicity in Federal Circuit Formalism
Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 20 Issue 1 Article 1 January 2004 The Supreme Court's Complicity in Federal Circuit Formalism Timothy R. Holbrook Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj
More informationUnited States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. SHEN WEI (USA), INC., and Medline Industries, Inc, Plaintiffs. v. ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC, Defendant. Shen Wei (USA), Inc., and Medline
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1592 ANCHOR WALL SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff- Appellant, v. ROCKWOOD RETAINING WALLS, INC., GLS INDUSTRIES, INC., EQUIPMENT, INC., RAYMOND R. PRICE,
More informationFive Winning Strategies for Crafting Claims in U.S. Patent Applications
Page 1 Five Winning Strategies for Crafting Claims in U.S. Patent Applications, is a registered patent attorney and chair of the Intellectual Property and Technology Practice Group at Bond, Schoeneck &
More informationCLAIM CONSTRUCTION RULING
United States District Court, D. Connecticut. CLEARWATER SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. EVAPCO, INC., et al, Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:05cv507 (SRU) May 16, 2008. Background: Manufacturer of non-chemical
More informationFesto: A Case Contravening the Convergence of Doctrine of Equivalents Jurisprudence in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States
Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review Volume 8 Issue 1 2002 Festo: A Case Contravening the Convergence of Doctrine of Equivalents Jurisprudence in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 21 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 01-1553, -1569 WILLIAM G. RILES, Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. SHELL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. Jonathan
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The University of Texas School of Law 20th ANNUAL ADVANCED PATENT LAW INSTITUTE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION November 5-6, 2015 Four Seasons Hotel Austin, Texas Kenneth R. Adamo* Kirkland
More informationClaim Construction: What Can the Phillips Decision Clarify?
Claim Construction: What Can the Phillips Decision Clarify? MEREDITH ADDY February 25, 2005 Claim Construction Where Are We Now? Wasn t Markman supposed to clarify things? Markman v. Westview Instr., Inc.,
More informationThe Limits of Claim Differentiation
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 22 Issue 4 Fall Article 4 September 2007 The Limits of Claim Differentiation Mark A. Lemley Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj
More informationClaims and Determining Scope of Protection
Introduction 2014 APAA Patents Committee Questionnaire Claims and Determining Scope of Protection for Taiwan Group Many practitioners and users of the patent system believe that it is a fairly universal
More informationFrederick S. Berretta, Boris Zelkind, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff.
United States District Court, N.D. California. GOLDEN HOUR DATA SYSTEMS, INC, Plaintiff. v. HEALTH SERVICES INTEGRATION, INC, Defendant. No. C 06-7477 SI July 22, 2008. Frederick S. Berretta, Boris Zelkind,
More informationMEMORANDUM ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. MGM WELL SERVICES, INC, Plaintiff. v. MEGA LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant. Feb. 10, 2006. Joseph Dean Lechtenberger, Howrey LLP, Houston, TX, for
More information