Home » Patent Infringement (Intellectual Property Law Series) by LandMark Publications
Patent Infringement (Intellectual Property Law Series) LandMark Publications

Patent Infringement (Intellectual Property Law Series)

LandMark Publications

Published October 2nd 2012
ISBN :
Kindle Edition
5986 pages
Enter the sum

 About the Book 

This casebook contains a selection of 296 decisions of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that address patent infringement disputes. Many of the decisions include de novo review of rulings on summary judgment motions. ApproximatelyMoreThis casebook contains a selection of 296 decisions of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that address patent infringement disputes. Many of the decisions include de novo review of rulings on summary judgment motions. Approximately one third of the opinions address issues arising from applications for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The selection of decisions spans from 2005 to the date of publication. For each year, the cases are listed in the order of frequency of citation. The most cited decisions appear first.It has been suggested that a reading of claim construction cases indicates that outcomes depend on the judges predilection for one of two approaches. One approach is to focus on the invention disclosed in the patent: [t]ry to understand what the inventor has invented (what he says is his contribution in the art) and then choose the claim meaning that best fits the invention. The other is to focus on the words that the prosecuting lawyer used to craft the claims and then apply legal rules of construction to divine the meaning of the claim. MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp., 672 F. 3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2012)While this is insightful regarding the approaches highlighted in one or another of the cases, it is an over-simplification to suggest that these are competing theories- rather, they are complementary. An inventor is entitled to claim in a patent what he has invented, but no more. He can, however, claim less, to avoid prior art or for any other reason. Therefore, in construing a claim there are two limiting factors—what was invented, and what exactly was claimed. To determine the former—what was invented—we look at the entire patent, with particular attention to the specification (the written description of the invention and the several claims made). To determine the latter— what exactly was claimed—the focus is on the precise words of the particular claim or claims at issue- the written description and preferred embodiments are aids in understanding those words. Ibid.Under the doctrine of equivalents, a product or process that does not literally infringe . . . the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is equivalence between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented invention. A patent is infringed under the doctrine of equivalents if any difference between a given limitation in the asserted claim and the corresponding element in the accused device is insubstantial. Alternatively, an element in the accused device is equivalent to a claim limitation if it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result. Regardless how the equivalence test is articulated, the doctrine of equivalents must be applied to individual limitations of the claim, not to the invention as a whole. Mirror Worlds, LLC, v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012)