Sponsored Ads:
Citations:
US Code - Title 35: Patents -
35 USC 112 - Sec. 112. Specification
US Code - Title 35: Patents -
35 USC 102 - Sec. 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right
to patent
U.S. Supreme Court -
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997)
U.S. Supreme Court -
Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Dolly, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc., Defendant-Appellant., 16 F.3d 394 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
See all quotations
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Westview Instruments, Inc. and Althon Enterprises, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Modine Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. United States International Trade Commission, Appellee, and Showa Aluminum Corporation and Showa Aluminum Corporation of America, and Mitsubishi Motors Corporation and Mitsubishi Motors Sales of America, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., Intervenors., 75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, Lsi Logic Corporation, and Vlsi Technology, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 90 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Vitronics Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Conceptronic, Inc., Defendant-Appellee., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Sage Products, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Devon Industries, Inc., Defendant/Cross-Appellant., 126 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Bell & Howell Document Management Products Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Altek Systems, Defendant, and Keystone Jackets, Inc. and George Wrabel, Defendants-Appellees., 132 F.3d 701 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Cybor Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross Appellants., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant, and Ethicon, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant, v. United States Surgical Corporation, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee., 149 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
the Toro Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc. and Wci Outdoor Products, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 266 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Interactive Pictures Corp., (Formerly Known as Omniview, Inc.) Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Infinite Pictures, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Bill Tillman, Craig Jones, and Gary Waltenbaugh (Doing Business as Graphics Effects, Also Known as Graphics Efx), Defendants., 274 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Vulcan Engineering Co., Inc., Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. Fata Aluminium, Inc., and Fata Group, S.P.A., Defendants-Appellants., 278 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, Defendant-Appellee., 285 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Abbott Laboratories and Mitsubishi-Tokyo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Formerly Known as Tokyo Tanabe Co., Ltd.), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Dey, L.P. and Dey, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 287 F.3d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Wilson Sporting Goods Co., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Geoffrey & Associates D/B/a Slazenger, and Dunlop Slazenger Corporation Aka Dunlop Sports Corporation, Defendants-Appellants., 904 F.2d 677 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
the Perkin-Elmer Corporation, Appellant, v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Appellee., 822 F.2d 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Eastman Kodak Company, Eastman Chemical Company, and Zimmer Aktiengesellschaft, Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellants, v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant-Appellant, and Shell Oil Company, Defendant-Appellant., 114 F.3d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Dr. Raymond G. Tronzo, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Biomet, Inc., Defendant-Appellant., 156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Insituform Technologies, Inc., Insituform (Netherlands) B.v. and Insituform Gulf South, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Cat Contracting, Inc., Michigan Sewer Construction, Kanal Sanierung Hans Mueller Gmbh & Co. Kg and Inliner U.S.A.,Defendants-Appellants., 161 F.3d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Wms Gaming Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. International Game Technology, Defendant-Appellee., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Overhead Door Corporation and Gmi Holdings, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. the Chamberlain Group, Inc., Defendant-Appellant., 194 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Zodiac Pool Care, Inc., (Formerly Known as Baracuda International Corporation) Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc., Defendant-Cross-Appellant., 206 F.3d 1408 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Advanced Display Systems, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, and Bao Gang Wu, Third Party Defendant-Appellee, v. Kent State University and Kent Research Corporation, Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Kent Display Systems, Inc., Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant., 212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Vehicular Technologies Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Titan Wheel International, Inc., Dyneer Corporation, Transamerica Auto Parts Company, Inc., and Leon Rosser Auto Service, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 212 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Fiskars, Inc. and Fiskars Oy Ab, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Hunt Manufacturing Co., Defendant-Appellant, and Joseph F. Posillico, Sanctioned Party-Appellant., 221 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Caterpillar Inc.,Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deere & Company, Defendant-Appellee., 224 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Moore U.S.A., Inc.,Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Standard Register Company,Defendant-Cross Appellant., 229 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Ony Inc., Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants, v. Abbott Laboratories, Defendant-Appellant, and Tokyo Tanabe Co., Ltd., (Acquired By Mitsubishi-Tokyo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), Defendant-Appellant., 239 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Demarini Sports, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Worth, Inc., Defendant-Cross Appellant., 239 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Scimed Life Systems, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Defendant-Appellee., 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Harry Schoell, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Regal Marine Industries, Inc. and Emerald City Harbor, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 247 F.3d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Ballard Medical Products, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allegiance Healthcare Corp., and Sorenson Critical Care, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 268 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. -
Jacob H. Malta and Malmark, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Schulmerich Carillons, Inc., and Ronald O. Beach, Defendants/Cross-Appellants, and Kelly-Michener, Inc., and the Handchime Company, Ltd., Defendants., 952 F.2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
Headnotes:
Extract:
Proof of Equivalence After Festo
I. INTRODUCTION
An accused product or process that does not literally infringe a claim may still infringe under the doctrine of equivalents if each limitation of the claim is met by the accused product or process either literally or equivalently. Cybor Corp. v. Fas Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). In Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 122 S. Ct. 1831 (2002), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the vitality of the doctrine of equivalents, stating that "equivalents remain a firmly entrenched part of the settled rights protected by the patent." Id. at 1838. The Court explained that "[t]he doctrine of equivalents is premised on language's inability to capture the essence of innovation":
The language in the patent claims may not capture every nuance of the invention or describe with complete precision the range of its novelty. If patents were always interpreted by their literal terms, their value would be greatly diminished. Unimportant and insubstantial substitutes for certain elements could defeat the patent, and its value to inventors could be destroyed by simple acts of copying. For this reason, the clearest rule of patent interpretation, literalism, may conserve judicial resource but is not necessarily the most efficient rule. The scope of a patent is not limited to its literal terms but instead embraces all equivalents to the claims described.
Id. at 1837, 1839. The Court recognized that "the doctrine of equivalents renders the scope of patents less certain," but rationalized that this "uncertainty [is] the price of ensuring the appropriate incentives for innovation." Id. at 1837-38.
The doctrine of equivalents is thus the antithesis of literalism. Yet, one must first construe the l...
Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
Constitutions Forms and Contracts Legal Books and Journals Case Law News and Business Regulations U.S. Code
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here
Sponsored Ads:
Other documents:
