Download - Doctrine of Equivalents
![Page 1: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Doctrine of Equivalents
Intro to IP – Prof Merges
2.2.10
![Page 2: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Topics Today
• Doctrine of Equivalents
• Prosecution history estoppel
![Page 3: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Equivalents/Literal Claim Scope
Literal ClaimScope
Range ofEquivalents
![Page 4: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Hughes Satellite – p. 275-78
![Page 5: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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)
![Page 6: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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.
![Page 7: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
S/E
S/E
![Page 11: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
S/E
![Page 12: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Literal Infringement
S/E
Doctrine of Equivalents
Patent
•f “means disposed . . . for receiving . . . signals•g “said valve being coupled to said last-named means and responsive ...
ClaimElements
?
![Page 13: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Literal InfringementDoctrine of Equivalents
PioneeringInventions
ModestInventions
Patent
•f “means disposed . . . for receiving . . . signals•g “said valve being coupled to said last-named means and responsive ...
ClaimElements
![Page 14: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Prosecution History Estoppel
• Festo v. SKK Kabushiki, p. 279
![Page 15: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
![Page 19: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Original Claim Scope
![Page 20: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Original Claim Scope
Narrowed Scope, after amend-ment
![Page 21: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Accused product: ultra-purifica-tion at 9.5 pH
No Infringement under DOE
X
![Page 22: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Accused Product: pH of 5.0 – can Hilton-Davis assert infringement under DOE?
??
![Page 23: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
• 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
![Page 24: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
![Page 25: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
![Page 26: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
![Page 27: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Amendments
• Two patents –
–Stoll, 4,354,125
–Carroll, 3,779,401
![Page 28: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Prosecution History
• Amendments
• What limitations did patentee add during prosecution?
• Why were they made?
![Page 29: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
How amended?
• Claims changed to include a new limitation: piston assembly must now include a pair of sealing rings
![Page 30: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Equivalents and Prosecution History
• P. 283
• “Insubstantial alterations”
• BUT: Cannot “recapture” an insusbtantial alteration GIVEN UP during prosecution
![Page 31: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
1st point: “related to patentability”
• Claim amendment for any reason can give rise to estoppel
• Not just prior art-related reasons
![Page 32: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Presumption arising from claim amendments
• P. 287
![Page 33: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
2nd Point: The 3-Part Test
• Supreme Court rejects “complete bar”
• Federal Circuit’s new rule reversed and thrown out
![Page 34: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Original Claim Scope
![Page 35: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Original Claim Scope
Narrowed Scope, after amend-ment
![Page 36: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
2nd Point: The 3-Part Test
• P 287
• [1] Unforeseeable equivalents
• [2] Amendment bears “tangential relation” to equivalent
• [3] “Some other reason” -- ?
![Page 37: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
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?
![Page 38: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
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”
![Page 39: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Equivalents/Literal Claim Scope
Literal ClaimScope
Range ofEquivalents
What is a “baffle”? Is the tank “thereon”?
![Page 40: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Equivalents/Literal Claim Scope
Literal ClaimScope
Range ofEquivalents
Is a single sealing ring equivalent to “a pair” of them?
![Page 41: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Prosecution History Estoppel
1. Warner-Jenkinson: presumption that part of claim coverage is surrendered when applicant amends claim
2. Festo case: 3 Ways to beat the presumption
3. Post-Festo developments: “disclosed but not claimed”/dedicated to the public
![Page 42: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
“Range of Equivalents”
Infringement under DOE ?
Literal Claim Scope
![Page 43: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
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
![Page 44: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Original Claim Scope
![Page 45: Doctrine of Equivalents](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815cbf550346895dcac26b/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Original Claim Scope
Narrowed Scope, after amend-ment