Law of Patents

Chapter 7. Enforcing Patent Rights

Introduction
Comparative Perspective: Enforcing Patents in Europe
  1. Claim Interpretation
    1. Claim Interpretation
      Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
      view pdfMarkman Reissue Patent No. Re. 33,054
      Comments
    2. Interpretive Methodologies and Sources of Evidence
      Phillips v. AWH Corp.
      view pdfPhillips Patent No. 4,677,798
      Comments
      Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown
      view pdfBaslow Patent No. 4,018,260
      Comments
    3. Policy Perspective: Claim Construction Methodology
  2. Infringement
    1. Literal Infringement
      Larami v. Amron
      view pdfTTMP Patent No. 4,239,129
      Comments
    2. The Doctrine of Equivalents
      Graver Tank v. Linde Air Products, Co.
      view pdfLinde Patent No. 2,043,960
      Comments
      Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.
      view pdfHilton-Davis Patent No. 4,560,746
      Comments
    3. Limitations on the Doctrine of Equivalents
      1. Prosecution History Estoppel
        Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kobushiki Co., Ltd.
        view pdfStoll Patent No. 4,354,125
        view pdfCarroll Patent No. 3,779,401
        Comments
        Policy Perspective: Festo and the Devolution of Responsibility
      2. Public Dedication Rule
        Johnson & Johnston Associates, Inc. v. R.E. Service Co., Inc.
        view pdfJohnston Patent No. 5,153,050
        Comments
      3. All-Limitations Rule and Specific Exclusion
        SciMed Life Sys. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.
        view pdfSciMed Patent No. 5,395,334
        view pdfSciMed Patent No. 5,217,482
        view pdfSciMed Patent No. 5,156,594
        Comments
      4. Prior Art
        Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates
        view pdfWilson Sporting 4,560,168
        Comments
    4. Comparative Perspective: Claim Interpretation and the DOE in the United Kingdom
      Kirin-Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd.
      Comments
    5. Indirect Infringement
      Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.
      view pdfLucent patent No. 4,763,356
      Comments
    6. Infringement of Means-Plus-Function Claims
      Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp.
      view pdfOdetics Patent No. 4,779,151
      Comments
  3. Defining the Geographic Scope of the Patent Right
    1. The Parameters of § 271(a): Defining “Within the United States”
      NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion
      view pdfNTP Patent No. 6,317,592
      view pdfNTP Patent No. 5,819,172
      view pdfNTP Patent No. 6,067,451
      view pdfNTP Patent No. 5,625,670
      view pdfNTP Patent No. 5,436,960
      Comments
    2. The Parameters of § 271(f): Export Activity
      Microsoft Corporation v. AT&T Corp.
      view pdfAT&T Reissue Patent No. Re. 32,580
      Comments
    3. The Parameters of § 271(g): Import Activity
      Eli Lilly and Company v. American Cyanamid Company
      view pdfEli Lilly Patent 4,160,085
      Comments
Get the latest news from CWRU Law directly to your inbox