1 / 13

Infringement & the Doctrine of Equivalents III

Infringement & the Doctrine of Equivalents III. Class Notes: March 6, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner. Today’s Agenda. Prosecution History Estoppel Prior Art Limits on DOE Reverse DOE. Prosecution History Estoppel. PHE Illustration

minor
Download Presentation

Infringement & the Doctrine of Equivalents III

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Infringement & the Doctrine of Equivalents III Class Notes: March 6, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner

  2. Today’s Agenda • Prosecution History Estoppel • Prior Art Limits on DOE • Reverse DOE Law 677 | Spring 2003

  3. Prosecution History Estoppel • PHE Illustration • Patent ‘123 discloses a lighting system, using colored bulbs; a blue color is given as an example • The prior art contains very similar systems, including those using red colored bulbs • Scenario 1: Scenario 2: • Original claim: Original claim: • A lighting system comprising: A lighting system comprising: • … a colored bulb … … a blue light bulb … • Amended claim: • A lighting system comprising: • … a blue light bulb … Law 677 | Spring 2003

  4. Prosecution History Estoppel • Scenario 1: Scenario 2: • Original claim: Original claim: • A lighting system comprising: A lighting system comprising: • … a colored bulb … … a blue light bulb … • Amended claim: • A lighting system comprising: • … a blue light bulb … • Which of the following are covered (in each scenario) (and, why?): • Systems with blue bulbs • Systems with red bulbs • Systems with green bulbs Law 677 | Spring 2003

  5. Prosecution History Estoppel • Festo (USSC 2002): • How does the court describe the theory of PHE? What is the goal of the doctrine? • To what sort of amendments does PHE apply? (Why?) • When PHE applies, how much of the claim scope is surrendered? • A ‘presumption’ of complete surrender… • But, cases where surrender is inappropriate: • ‘Unforeseeable’ equivalent • ‘Tangential’ rationale for amendment • Other ‘unreasonable’ cases Law 677 | Spring 2003

  6. Prosecution History Estoppel • Festo, continued … • Do you agree with the court that: “the nature of language makes it impossible to capture the essence of a thing in a patent application”? (p. 10) • And, do you agree that amended language is unlikely to be any better? (p. 17) • Is PHE really about the scope of patents (and the tension between DOE and notice)? Consider: • Who bears the risk/burden/cost of ‘uncertain’ language? • What are the incentives that PHE (can) provide? • Did the court miss its chance? Law 677 | Spring 2003

  7. Recap: Limits on the DOE • Following Footnote 8… • The All-Elements Rule • Prosecution History Estoppel • Prior art Limitations on DOE Law 677 | Spring 2003

  8. Prior Art Limits on DOE • Illustration • Original claim A fastening system comprising: A square-headed, stainless steel bolt; and A corresponding nut. • The Prior Art Brass hex-headed bolts and nuts. • Can you (should you?) get DOE coverage of: • Brass, hex headed bolts/nuts • Brass, square-headed bolts/nuts Law 677 | Spring 2003

  9. Prior Art Limits on DOE • Wilson Sporting Goods (Fed Cir 1990) • WSG invention: golf ball dimple pattern requiring six ‘great circle’ paths without any intersection • Prior art: patterns with six great circle paths, with at least one (and as many as 30 or more) intersections • Accused device: six great circles, with 60 intersections Law 677 | Spring 2003

  10. Prior Art Limits on DOE • Wilson Sporting Goods, continued … • Why can there be no infringement, as a matter of law, under DOE? • Court: “a patentee should not be able to obtain, under the DOE, coverage which he could not lawfully have obtained from the PTO by literal claims.” • But the Court notes the accused golf balls were not in the public domain -- they differ from the prior art • So is the court’s conception broader than it suggests? (How?) Law 677 | Spring 2003

  11. Prior Art Limits on DOE • Wilson Sporting Goods, continued … • Hypothetical Claim Analysis • Develop a hypothetical claim, similar to patent claim, but that covers the accused device • If the hypothetical claim is unpatentable, then no DOE infringement • Why might this be a better analytic process? Law 677 | Spring 2003

  12. The Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents • Westinghouse: • even if literal infringement is found, if the accused device is “so far changed from the principle of the device” so that the literal claims do not represent “the actual invention,” then there will be no infringement. (The “reverse doctrine of equivalents”.) • But … If you propose a claim construction that doesn’t represent your actual invention, what should happen? • Do we need the rDOE? • Note: the Federal Circuit has never found rDOE Law 677 | Spring 2003

  13. Next Class • Infringement & the Doctrine of Equivalents IV • Class Exercise Law 677 | Spring 2003

More Related