Law Commons^™

A Penguin's Defense Of The Doctrine Of Equivalents, Kristen Jakobsen Osenga

Law Faculty Publications

There is no dearth of commentary about the doctrine of equivalents in patent law. Many articles proclaim the doctrine's death, often noting its passage with unbridled delight. Some articles provide empirical evidence to support the assertion that the doctrine of equivalents is dead. Others simply yearn for the doctrine to fade from use, pointing out that no court has "articulated a convincing rationale" for the doctrine's continued use. But maybe these scholars have it wrong. It may be true that the instances of doctrine of equivalents analysis in patent cases are on the decline and successful outcomes based on the …

Explaining The Demise Of The Doctrine Of Equivalents, David L. Schwartz

All Faculty Scholarship

This article provides a novel theoretical model and extensive empirical evidence to explain the decline of a historically important patent law doctrine known as the “doctrine of equivalents.” In recent years, distinguished academics have studied the doctrine of equivalents. While these scholars noted that the doctrine of equivalents had decreased in its successful use and provided some grounds for the decline, none clearly explained why. As such, the cause and precise mechanism behind the so-called “demise” of the doctrine of equivalents have largely remained a mystery.

This article explains that the demise occurred because of two complementary forces discussed for …

The Doctrine Of Equivalents: Becoming A Derelict On The Waters Of Patent Law, Charles Adams

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

The doctrine of equivalents expands the scope of patent protection in some circumstances to cover variations of the invention that are not within the literal terms of the claims. While there is no statutory basis for the doctrine of equivalents, and it has been characterized as an anomaly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the doctrine over the past 150 years. Although the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts continue to recognize the doctrine of equivalents, they have not clearly defined the circumstances in which it is available, nor demarcated the extent to which it expands the scope of …

Invention, Refinement And Patent Claim Scope: A New Perspective On The Doctrine Of Equivalents, Michael J. Meurer, Craig Allen Nard

Faculty Scholarship

The doctrine of equivalents (DOE) allows courts to expand the scope of patent rights granted by the Patent Office. The doctrine has been justified on fairness grounds, but it lacks a convincing economic justification. The standard economic justification holds that certain frictions block patent applicants from literally claiming appropriately broad rights, and thus, the DOE is available at trial to expand patent scope and overcome these frictions. The friction theory suffers from three main weaknesses. First, the theory is implausible on empirical grounds. Frictions such as limits of language, mistake, and unforeseeability are missing from the leading cases. Second, there …

Invention, Refinement And Patent Claim Scope: A New Perspective On The Doctrine Of Equivalents, Craig Allen Nard

Faculty Publications

The doctrine of equivalents (DOE) allows courts to expand the scope of patent rights granted by the Patent Office. The doctrine has been justified on fairness grounds, but it lacks a convincing economic justification. The standard economic justification holds that certain frictions block patent applicants from literally claiming appropriately broad rights, and thus, the DOE is available at trial to expand patent scope and overcome these frictions. The friction theory suffers from three main weaknesses. First, the theory is implausible on empirical grounds. Frictions such as limits of language, mistake, and unforeseeability are missing from the leading cases. Second, there …

Reconsidering Estoppel: Patent Administration And The Failure Of Festo, R. Polk Wagner

All Faculty Scholarship

Last Term, in Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabashuki 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 an arbitrary ex post limitation on patent scope. This Article demonstrates the serious flaws in this traditionalist approach, and develops a new theory of prosecution history …

Internet Business Model Patents: Obvious By Analogy, Margo A. Bagley

Faculty Articles

Part I of this Article provides a look at Internet business model patents in light of key patentability requirements mandated by the Patent Act. Part II traces the evolution of the analogous art component of the non-obviousness determination and illustrates how the malleability of the doctrine, as exemplified in several Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions, has particular relevance to prior art definitions for Internet business model patents. Part III of this Article then examines the doctrine of equivalents and explores how the likelihood of improper application of this doctrine in the Internet business model context is increased. …

Unmasking Structural Equivalency: The Intersection Of § 112, ¶ 6 Equivalents And The Doctrine Of Equivalents, Mark D. Janis

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Judge And Jury Roles In Equivalents Analysis: Commentary On Malta V. Schulmerich Carillons, Mark D. Janis

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In Malta v. Schulmerich Carillons Inc. a divided panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed a JNOV granted on a jury verdict of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. In so doing, the panel majority confirmed the applicability of guidelines from previous cases for determining the threshold level of evidence necessary to get the equivalents issue to the jury. This paper argues that despite powerful criticism from the dissent, the common sense guidelines articulated in theMalta majority opinion are not only necessary, but are appropriate. Indeed, the paper argues that the Malta guidelines are fundamental to the equivalents analysis, and …