Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=287480
 
 

Citations (2)



 
 

Footnotes (99)



 


 



Foreseeability in Patent Law


Matthew J. Conigliaro


Carlton Fields, Attorneys at Law

Andrew C. Greenberg


Carlton Fields, Attorneys at Law

Mark A. Lemley


Stanford Law School

October 2001

Berkeley Tech. Law Journal, Vol. 16, p. 1045, 2001

Abstract:     
In the Festo decision, the Federal Circuit significantly changed the scope of the doctrine of equivalents in patent law. The doctrine of prosecution history estoppel precludes a patent owner from claiming during litigation to own ground given up during patent prosecution. Under the old rule, called the "flexible bar," estoppel was based on a multi-factor test and would apply only if the patentee had no choice but to amend its claims in the way it did. Festo replaced the flexible bar with an "absolute bar," under which virtually any amendment to a patent precludes resort to the doctrine of equivalents for that claim element.

The Supreme Court is now considering whether the flexible or absolute bar is the right rule. We believe there is middle ground in this debate that has been ignored with both parties. Whether prosecution history estoppel applies to any given amendment should depend on the reasonably foreseeable effect of that amendment. Normally, patentees will understand that they are surrendering coverage by amending their patent claims, and so a rule precluding them from reclaiming that ground makes sense. But in some cases the absolute bar will produce unexpected and unintended results. We argue that the application of estoppel should turn on whether the effect of a change would be foreseeable to a reasonable patentee at the time of the amendment. This "foreseeable" bar better balances the competing policies of strong protection for pioneering inventors and notice to improvers who wish to design around a patent.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 23

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: October 25, 2001  

Suggested Citation

Conigliaro, Matthew J. and Greenberg, Andrew C. and Lemley, Mark A., Foreseeability in Patent Law (October 2001). Berkeley Tech. Law Journal, Vol. 16, p. 1045, 2001. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=287480 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.287480

Contact Information

Matthew J. Conigliaro
Carlton Fields, Attorneys at Law
One Harbour Place
777 S. Harbour Island Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33602-5799
United States
Andrew C. Greenberg
Carlton Fields, Attorneys at Law ( email )
One Harbour Place
777 S. Harbour Island Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33602-5799
United States
Mark A. Lemley (Contact Author)
Stanford Law School ( email )
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 5,952
Downloads: 532
Download Rank: 27,901
Citations:  2
Footnotes:  99
People who downloaded this paper also downloaded:
1. Software Patents and the Return of Functional Claiming
By Mark Lemley

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.532 seconds