Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Prosecution History Disclaimer: Beware of What You Clearly and Unambiguously Say
Patent prosecutors typically are cautious when making arguments that distinguish their client's invention from the prior art. This caution was traditionally based on the concern that later, when the client enforced its patent rights against a potential infringer, these arguments may provide the basis for restricting the range of equivalents available to the patentee under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel. Prosecution history estoppel normally limits the range of equivalent elements that are available to satisfy a claim element under a doctrine of equivalents analysis (ie, when there is no literal infringement of that claim element). Recent decisions by the Federal Circuit not only reaffirm the significance of statements made during prosecution; they also extend their impact to a literal infringement analysis. A patentee who during prosecution “clearly and unequivocally” disavows the prior art (or even defines the invention) may affect the literal scope of the claims. This doctrine is now regularly referred to as prosecution history disclaimer.
Under this doctrine, a claim term may receive a “gloss” that limits the claim to a particular feature that is not expressly stated in the claim, and the result can play out at the level of a literal infringement analysis. Thus, an accused infringer should closely examine prosecution history statements, not only as a source of arguments to limit the patentee's range of equivalents, but also as a source of potentially determinative evidence for a favorable claim construction to avoid literal infringement. Similarly, patent prosecutors should carefully phrase the arguments made during prosecution so as to avoid unnecessarily emphasizing arguments or distinctions in order to obtain allowance of claims, thereby limiting the opportunity of a future alleged infringer to successfully invoke the doctrine of prosecution history disclaimer.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Judge Rules Shaquille O'Neal Will Face Securities Lawsuit for Promotion, Sale of NFTs
A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
Coverage Issues Stemming from Dry Cleaner Contamination Suits
In recent years, there has been a growing number of dry cleaners claiming to be "organic," "green," or "eco-friendly." While that may be true with respect to some, many dry cleaners continue to use a cleaning method involving the use of a solvent called perchloroethylene, commonly known as perc. And, there seems to be an increasing number of lawsuits stemming from environmental problems associated with historic dry cleaning operations utilizing this chemical.