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.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
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.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.