The doctrine of equivalents took a beating over the last ten years as the courts began to pay homage to the notice function of claims.[FOOTNOTE 1] Judge Alan D. Lourie of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, one of the more vocal critics of a broad range of equivalents, first shared his concern in the 1991 case London v. Carson:[FOOTNOTE 2]
[I]f the public comes to believe (or fear) that the language of patent claims can never be relied on, and that the doctrine of equivalents is merely the second prong of every infringement charge, regularly available to extend protection beyond the scope of the claims, then claims will cease to serve their intended purpose. Competitors will never know whether their actions infringe a granted patent.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
