Reconsidering estoppel: patent administration and the failure of Festo. From: University of Pennsylvania Law Review | Date: November 1, 2002| Author: Wagner, R. Polk | COPYRIGHT 2002 University of Pennsylvania, Law School. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan.  All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group.Copyright information

Last Term, in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., the United States Supreme Court missed perhaps the most important opportunity for patent law reform in two decades. At the core of the failure to grasp the implications of "prosecution history estoppel"--a judicially crafted principle limiting the enforceable scope of patents based on acts occurring during their application process--is the heretofore universal (but ultimately unsupportable) view of the doctrine as a...

Related newspaper, magazine, and journal articles from HighBeam Research

	Reconsidering estoppel: patent administration and the failure of Festo. University of Pennsylvania Law Review ; ... business method and software patents), at http://www.oreilly.com/news/amazon_patents.html (last visited Oct. 13, 2002); Legal Resources ... Presto! The Incredible Disappearing Doctrine of Equivalents, NEWS SOURCE (J. Marshall L. Sch. Ctr. Intell. Prop. L., Chicago, Ill ...
	Foreseeable trouble: How Festo Corp. V. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. offends fundamental policies of the U.S. patent system by making prosecution history estoppel depend upon foreseeability Brigham Young University Law Review ; I. INTRODUCTION The degree to which prosecution history estoppel limits the doctrine of equivalents has long been the subject of much debate among patent owners, competitors, and the courts. In Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,1 the Supreme Court attempted to provide guidance on
	The doctrine of equivalents and prosecution history estoppel. (Law of the Line).(Brief Article) Hawaii Business ; Patent attorneys often hear the folk wisdom that you only need to change an invention by 10 percent (or some similar number to avoid a patent. The Supreme Court has recently addressed this issue in Festo v. Shoketsu, a case discussing two patent concepts called the doctrine of equivalents and
	Definition for "limitation" in the context of prosecution history estoppel and the all elements rule: A proposed solution to the troubling dictum in Kustom Signals v. Applied Concepts Brigham Young University Law Review ; I. INTRODUCTION United States Patent Law is one of the most rapidly evolving areas of law,1 and the past few years have been particularly eventful. One of the focuses of recent debate has been the doctrine of equivalents, a long-standing legal doctrine designed to protect patent holders from
	Patent law doctrine of equivalents upheld again Daily Record (Rochester, NY) ; A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Festo v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki, a patent case regarding the doctrine of equivalents and the rule of prosecution history estoppel. The high court again affirmed the doctrine of equivalents, articulated
	Supreme Court Calendar The Washington Post ; The Supreme Court will hear arguments beginning at 10 a.m. today in the following cases: No. 00-1543. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Koygo Kabushiki Ltd. In patent law, does a finding of prosecution history estoppel bar the application of the doctrine of equivalents? (One hour.) No. 00-1072.
	Curbing the Federal Circuit's enthusiasm: an argument for a rebuttable presumption against application of the doctrine of equivalents to disclosed but unclaimed subject matter.(Case Note) William and Mary Law Review ; INTRODUCTION The laws that make up the patent corpus attempt to balance competing policy objectives of providing people an incentive to create new and useful products with the need to give society the benefits derived from a competitive marketplace. To strike this balance, Congress created a series
	The (unnoticed) demise of the doctrine of equivalents. Stanford Law Review ; INTRODUCTION I. THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS II. METHODOLOGY III. RESULTS A. Patentees Rarely Win B. Do the Legal Rules Matter? C. Other Findings 1. Learning effects in the district courts 2. Who uses the doctrine of equivalents? a. Industry differences b. Large versus small entities 3. What
	Exclusion confusion? A defense of the Federal Circuit's specific exclusion jurisprudence. Michigan Law Review ; Specific exclusion has become a controversial limitation on the doctrine of equivalents, which is itself an essential and controversial area of patent law. The doctrine of equivalents allows a patentee to successfully claim infringement against devices that are outside of the literal reach of the
	The doctrine of equivalents lives--U.S. Supreme Court reverses Federal Court JOM ; In a major decision that will have far-reaching impact on issues of infringement of U.S. patents, the U.S. Supreme Court, in overruling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the Festo case, ruled that the doctrine of equivalents should be applied in a flexible manner. This

See all results.