Doctrine of equivalents
Download
1 / 45

Doctrine of Equivalents - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 156 Views
  • Uploaded on

Doctrine of Equivalents. Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.2.10. Topics Today. Doctrine of Equivalents Prosecution history estoppel. Equivalents/Literal Claim Scope. Range of Equivalents. Literal Claim Scope. Hughes Satellite – p. 275-78.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Doctrine of Equivalents' - nascha


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Doctrine of equivalents

Doctrine of Equivalents

Intro to IP – Prof Merges

2.2.10


Topics today
Topics Today

  • Doctrine of Equivalents

  • Prosecution history estoppel


Equivalents literal claim scope
Equivalents/Literal Claim Scope

Range of

Equivalents

Literal

Claim

Scope


Hughes satellite p 275 78
Hughes Satellite – p. 275-78


Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 717 F.2d. 1351, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

  • Later developed technology to use onboard computers to control satellite orientation is equivalent to receive signals form the satellite and use the computers on earth to control the orientation of the satellite)


Hughes viii 1998
Hughes VIII 1998

  • Because Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States , 717 F.2d 1351, 219 USPQ 473 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ( Hughes VII ) satisfies the legal requirements announced in Warner-Jenkinson , we affirm.


S/E

S/E



Patent

Claim

Elements

S/E

  • f “means disposed . . . for receiving . . . signals

  • g “said valve being coupled to said last-named means and responsive ...

Literal Infringement

Doctrine of Equivalents

?


Patent

Claim

Elements

  • f “means disposed . . . for receiving . . . signals

  • g “said valve being coupled to said last-named means and responsive ...

Literal Infringement

Doctrine of Equivalents

Modest

Inventions

Pioneering

Inventions


Prosecution history estoppel
Prosecution History Estoppel

  • Festo v. SKK Kabushiki, p. 279



Original Claim Scope

Narrowed Scope, after amend-ment




  • United States Patent infringement under DOE?4,354,125 Stoll October 12, 1982 Magnetically coupled arrangement for a driving and a driven member

    The invention is concerned with a magnetically coupled arrangement for a driving and a driven member, which arrangement is operable by a pressure medium and is used in a conveying system. A slidable piston (16) within a tube (10) has an arrangement of annular magnets (20) provided at each end with sealing and sliding members (24, 26). A driven assembly (18) slidable on the outer surface of the tube (10) has an arrangement of annular magnets (32) corresponding to the magnets (20) and provided at each end with a sliding ring (44). The members (24, 26, 44) prevent ingress of foreign bodies to the magnet locations, and consequently enable the spacing between the magnets and the tube (10) to be very small. A good magnetic coupling is achieved resulting in effective transmission of power. Several pistons (16) abutting one another can be used for conveying heavy loads.

    Inventors: Stoll; Kurt (Lenzhalde 72, D-7300 Esslingen, DE) Appl. No.: 153999Filed: May 28, 1980


Amendments
Amendments infringement under DOE?

  • Two patents –

    • Stoll, 4,354,125

    • Carroll, 3,779,401


Prosecution history
Prosecution History infringement under DOE?

  • Amendments

  • What limitations did patentee add during prosecution?

  • Why were they made?


How amended
How amended? infringement under DOE?

  • Claims changed to include a new limitation: piston assembly must now include a pair of sealing rings


Equivalents and prosecution history
Equivalents and Prosecution History infringement under DOE?

  • P. 283

  • “Insubstantial alterations”

  • BUT: Cannot “recapture” an insusbtantial alteration GIVEN UP during prosecution


1 st point related to patentability
1 infringement under DOE?st point: “related to patentability”

  • Claim amendment for any reason can give rise to estoppel

  • Not just prior art-related reasons


Presumption arising from claim amendments
Presumption arising from claim amendments infringement under DOE?

  • P. 287


2 nd point the 3 part test
2 infringement under DOE?nd Point: The 3-Part Test

  • Supreme Court rejects “complete bar”

  • Federal Circuit’s new rule reversed and thrown out


Original Claim Scope infringement under DOE?


Original Claim Scope infringement under DOE?

Narrowed Scope, after amend-ment


2 nd point the 3 part test1
2 infringement under DOE?nd Point: The 3-Part Test

  • P 287

  • [1] Unforeseeable equivalents

  • [2] Amendment bears “tangential relation” to equivalent

  • [3] “Some other reason” -- ?


Doctrinal sequence
Doctrinal Sequence infringement under DOE?

  • FIRST: What is the literal meaning of the claim language?

  • THEN: If the accused product falls outside that language, is it an “equivalent” of the claimed invention?


What is the test for equivalence
What is the test for equivalence? infringement under DOE?

  • Is the accused product an “insubstantial alteration” under Warner-Jenkinson and Festo?

  • Even if so, was this trivial variation on the claim “given up” during patent prosecution; in which case, equivalents are “estopped”


Equivalents literal claim scope1
Equivalents/Literal Claim Scope infringement under DOE?

Range of

Equivalents

Literal

Claim

Scope

What is a “baffle”? Is the tank “thereon”?


Equivalents literal claim scope2
Equivalents/Literal Claim Scope infringement under DOE?

Range of

Equivalents

Literal

Claim

Scope

Is a single sealing ring equivalent to “a pair” of them?


Prosecution history estoppel1
Prosecution History Estoppel infringement under DOE?

  • Warner-Jenkinson: presumption that part of claim coverage is surrendered when applicant amends claim

  • Festo case: 3 Ways to beat the presumption

  • Post-Festo developments: “disclosed but not claimed”/dedicated to the public


“Range of Equivalents” infringement under DOE?

Literal Claim Scope

Infringement under DOE ?


Warner jenkinson
Warner-Jenkinson infringement under DOE?

  • DOE Survives challenge

  • Presumption in cases of claim amendment: amendment made for reasons related to patentability; prosecution history estoppel applies

     SO: Presumption of no DOE, you are limited to your literal claim language


Original Claim Scope infringement under DOE?


Original Claim Scope infringement under DOE?

Narrowed Scope, after amend-ment


ad