1 / 45

Doctrine of Equivalents

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.

nascha
Download Presentation

Doctrine of Equivalents

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. Doctrine of Equivalents Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.2.10

  2. Topics Today • Doctrine of Equivalents • Prosecution history estoppel

  3. Equivalents/Literal Claim Scope Range of Equivalents Literal Claim Scope

  4. Hughes Satellite – p. 275-78

  5. 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)

  6. 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.

  7. S/E S/E

  8. S/E

  9. 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 ?

  10. 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

  11. Prosecution History Estoppel • Festo v. SKK Kabushiki, p. 279

  12. Original Claim Scope

  13. Original Claim Scope Narrowed Scope, after amend-ment

  14. Accused product: ultra-purifica-tion at 9.5 pH X No Infringement under DOE

  15. Accused Product: pH of 5.0 – can Hilton-Davis assert infringement under DOE? ??

  16. United States Patent 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

  17. Amendments • Two patents – • Stoll, 4,354,125 • Carroll, 3,779,401

  18. Prosecution History • Amendments • What limitations did patentee add during prosecution? • Why were they made?

  19. How amended? • Claims changed to include a new limitation: piston assembly must now include a pair of sealing rings

  20. Equivalents and Prosecution History • P. 283 • “Insubstantial alterations” • BUT: Cannot “recapture” an insusbtantial alteration GIVEN UP during prosecution

  21. 1st point: “related to patentability” • Claim amendment for any reason can give rise to estoppel • Not just prior art-related reasons

  22. Presumption arising from claim amendments • P. 287

  23. 2nd Point: The 3-Part Test • Supreme Court rejects “complete bar” • Federal Circuit’s new rule reversed and thrown out

  24. Original Claim Scope

  25. Original Claim Scope Narrowed Scope, after amend-ment

  26. 2nd Point: The 3-Part Test • P 287 • [1] Unforeseeable equivalents • [2] Amendment bears “tangential relation” to equivalent • [3] “Some other reason” -- ?

  27. Doctrinal Sequence • 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?

  28. What is the test for equivalence? • 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”

  29. Equivalents/Literal Claim Scope Range of Equivalents Literal Claim Scope What is a “baffle”? Is the tank “thereon”?

  30. Equivalents/Literal Claim Scope Range of Equivalents Literal Claim Scope Is a single sealing ring equivalent to “a pair” of them?

  31. Prosecution History Estoppel • 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

  32. “Range of Equivalents” Literal Claim Scope Infringement under DOE ?

  33. Warner-Jenkinson • 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

  34. Original Claim Scope

  35. Original Claim Scope Narrowed Scope, after amend-ment

More Related