Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Dedication, Jaime L. Henshaw Mar 2004

Dedication, Jaime L. Henshaw

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


A Call To Arms: The Need To Protect The Independence Of The Judiciary, Harry L. Carrico Mar 2004

A Call To Arms: The Need To Protect The Independence Of The Judiciary, Harry L. Carrico

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Doctrine Of Equivalents And Claiming The Future After Festo, Joshua Sarnoff Jan 2004

The Doctrine Of Equivalents And Claiming The Future After Festo, Joshua Sarnoff

College of Law Faculty

In two recent cases, Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997), and Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), the Supreme Court unanimously approved of the modern doctrine of equivalents articulated in Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950). The Court also extended equivalents protection to later-arising technologies and imperfectly reconciled the modern doctrine with the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel for amended claims. The Court's new doctrine conflicts with historic implied-disclaimer standards. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has further …


The Doctrine Of Equivalents And Claiming The Future After Festo, Joshua D. Sarnoff Dec 2003

The Doctrine Of Equivalents And Claiming The Future After Festo, Joshua D. Sarnoff

Joshua D Sarnoff

In two recent cases, Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997), and Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), the Supreme Court unanimously approved of the modern doctrine of equivalents articulated in Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950). The Court also extended equivalents protection to later-arising technologies and imperfectly reconciled the modern doctrine with the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel for amended claims. The Court's new doctrine conflicts with historic implied-disclaimer standards. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has further …