|
| |
| | Doctrine of equivalents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
 | | The doctrine of equivalents is a legal rule in most of the world's patent systems that allows a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement even though the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of a | | | The goal of the doctrine of equivalents is to provide patent owners with fair protection for their patents. | | | In the United States, there are two tests for determining whether an accused device or process is deemed to be equivalent. |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents
|
|
| |
| | Chapter 10A - I.P. Protection of Digital Rights in the New Millennium |
| | As to the applicability of the doctrine of equivalents to the two patents, this court held that the doctrine of equivalents should not apply because no facts presented supported an application of the doctrine and plaintiff was estopped to use the doctrine of equivalents under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel (file wrapper estoppel). | | | Equivalence, in the patent law, is not the prisoner of a formula and is not an absolute to be considered in a vacuum. | | | However, I believe that the district court failed to consider the doctrine of equivalents issue in accord with the precedents of both this court and the Supreme Court. |
|
http://www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/ch-10.htm
|
|
| |
| | VA Bar IP Section NEWSLINE |
| | The doctrine of equivalents is a well-established concept by which the courts have allowed an expanded scope of protection afforded patents to protect the patentee from the unscrupulous copier, who would copy an invention with only an insubstantial or slight change from the wording of the patent. | | | Because equivalence, in the patent law, is not the prisoner of formula, the available relevant evidence may vary from case to case. | | | Is the issue of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents an equitable remedy to be decided by the court, or is it, like literal infringement, an issue of fact to be submitted to the jury in a jury case? |
|
http://www.vsb.org/sections/ip/art5.htm
|
|
| |
| | 234 F |
| | On remand, the court made certain holdings regarding the effect of prosecution history estoppel on the doctrine of equivalents, and the court reversed the judgment of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of both patents. | | | In referring to equivalents the Court was referring to the language of the claims ("substantially" in claim 1 and "or its equivalents" in claim 2). | | | The remaining issues, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of the Stoll patent, and validity of the Carroll and Stoll patents, were tried to a jury. |
|
http://www.law.emory.edu/students/ips/festo.htm
|
|
| |
| | PROTECTING THE NEXT SMALL THING: NANOTECHNOLOGY AND THE REVERSE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS |
| | The doctrine of equivalents is a double-edged sword because that realism also compels the equitable excuse of literal infringement in a certain subset of situations. | | | At the very least, it is imperative that the reverse doctrine of equivalents remain good law even if the courts still decline to apply it in most cases, since even its threat influences bargaining between rational actors in a way that favors the progress of science and the commercialization of its fruits. | | | However, by using the reverse doctrine of equivalents more liberally in specific cases, courts can incrementally improve the bargaining positions of all nanotechnology actors. |
|
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2004dltr0010.html
|
|
| |
| | The Doctrine of Equivalents Lives--U.S. Supreme Court Reverses Federal Court |
| | Second, under the judicially created doctrine of equivalents, if one makes a minor departure from the claim and, therefore, does not literally infringe, one may nevertheless be held to be an infringer if one achieves substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result. | | | One manner in which the applicability of the doctrine of equivalents is restricted or eliminated occurs when an original claim is narrowed by amendment during prosecution to avoid prior art. | | | Under the Federal Court opinion, which was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court, the rigid bar would have stated that, as two elements in question were the subject of narrowing amendments, the doctrine of equivalents could not be employed and, therefore, there would be no infringement. |
|
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0208.html
|
|
| |
| | GigaLaw.com: Narrowing the "Doctrine of Equivalents" in Patent Cases |
| | Likewise, the doctrine cannot be used to expand claim coverage that would effectively "recapture" coverage that was surrendered by the patent applicant in order to obtain the patent in the first place. | | | Even though a patent applicant made amendments to the patent claims, there was still room for argument that the doctrine of equivalents could be used to expand the claim coverage somewhat, in certain cases. | | | Summary: In patent infringement cases, the "doctrine of equivalents" allows a patent owner to prove infringement even when the claims are not literally infringed. |
|
http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2001-all/kirsch-2001-03-all.html
|
|
| |
| | Ruling Is 'Nail in Coffin' Of Doctrine of Equivalents |
| | Shoketsu Kinzoku Ko-gyo Kabushiki Co., 00-1543, the Federal Circuit ruled that when a patent holder amends a patent application to narrow a claim, the holder is prohibited from ap-plying the doctrine of equivalents in an in-fringement suit. | | | RES argued, however, that since Johnson and Johnston mentioned steel in its patent but failed to claim it, use of the steel substrate was "dedicated to the public." The Federal Circuit agreed with RES, overturning an opinion of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. | | | In a 12-1 decision, the court ruled last week that if an inventor mentions something in his patent but fails to specifically claim it, he can't then say it is equivalent to an element in the patent. |
|
http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/stories/edt0402c.shtml
|
|
| |
| | United States - Doctrine of Equivalents |
| | The second part of the test is to consider only whether the prosecution history shows that the patentee relinquished the protection sought under the doctrine of equivalents or could not have obtained a claim of the scope sought during prosecution. | | | The Justice Department and the PTO on behalf of the U.S. government have filed a brief amicus curiae. | | | The brief sets out a two part test that the government considers should be used to determine whether infringement under the doctrine of equivalents should be found: |
|
http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1996/0896Bulletin/US6.0896.html
|
|
| |
| | Supreme Court swipes at copycats CNET News.com |
| | The unanimous Supreme Court ruling overturned a lower court decision that said the doctrine could never be applied to later changes a patent owner made to the application. | | | The high court said patentees who made later changes to their applications could still invoke the doctrine to protect their patents in certain, specific cases. | | | Shoketsu Kinzoku Koygo Kabushiki, the high court gave more ammunition to patent holders by allowing them to exert a legal theory known as the "doctrine of equivalents" in certain cases. |
|
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-923532.html
|
|
| |
| | 2186 Relationship to the Doctrine of Equivalents - 2100 Patentability |
| | Patents > 2186 Relationship to the Doctrine of Equivalents - 2100 Patentability | | | 2186 Relationship to the Doctrine of Equivalents - 2100 Patentability | | | If an accused product or process does not literally infringe a patented invention, the accused product or process may be found to infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. |
|
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2186.htm
|
|
| |
| | Doctrine of Equivalents Definition |
| | doctrine of equivalents definition — Under the doctrine of equivalents, courts will find infringement where none literally exists. | | | If the accused device or method — though not identical to the one defined by the claims — is sufficiently similar, then courts will consider it infringing because it is equivalent to the claimed invention. |
|
http://www.legal-definitions.com/doctrine-of-equivalents.htm
|
|
| |
| | Legal Definition of Doctrine Of Equivalents |
| | Every element of the patent claim either is literally present, or has some substantially equivalent corresponding element in the accused product process apparatus composition. | | | Close it when you're done and you may be back here.) | | | Court, Business and Personal Forms for all Situations and Locations |
|
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d067.htm
|
|
| |
| | Japan IP Resources |
| | Japan IP Resources provides news and information about patents, designs, trademarks, intellctual property in Japan. | | | If you are reading this text, you are using a Web browser that does not support frames. |
|
http://www.okuyama.com
|
|
|
