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

Law Commons

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

2008

Intellectual Property Law

Marquette University Law School

Inc.

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Phillips V. Awh, Corp., A Doctrine Of Equivalents Case?, Natalie Sturicz Jul 2008

Phillips V. Awh, Corp., A Doctrine Of Equivalents Case?, Natalie Sturicz

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

For a number of years, U.S. courts have noted that the doctrine of equivalents has been unworkable. This article explains that as American courts move toward a more holistic approach to claim interpretation, the doctrine of equivalents will become increasingly unnecessary as a means of expanding patent scope. The author asserts that adopting a "person having ordinary skill in the art" approach to claim interpretation and eliminating the doctrine of equivalents in patent infringement cases would benefit patent law in several ways: (1) when courts interpret patent claims from the perspective of a person reasonably skilled in the art, patentees …


Meddimmune, Microsoft, And Ksr: The United States Supreme Court In 2007 Tips The Balance In Favor Of Innovation In Patent Cases, And Thrice Reverses The Federal Circuit, Sue Ann Mota Jan 2008

Meddimmune, Microsoft, And Ksr: The United States Supreme Court In 2007 Tips The Balance In Favor Of Innovation In Patent Cases, And Thrice Reverses The Federal Circuit, Sue Ann Mota

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

In 2007 the Supreme Court reversed three patent cases from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The three cases were MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (holding a patent licensee does not have to breach a license agreement before seeking declaratory judgment that the underlying patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed), Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (holding Microsoft did not supply a component of an invention from the United States that had the possibility of infringing under the Patent Act), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (holding the requirement of non-obviousness under the Patent Act is analyzed …