Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Dedication Rule's Effect on Business Strategy
While the Federal Circuit's direct assault on the applicability and scope of the doctrine of equivalents may have been set back by the Supreme Court in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), the so-called Dedication Rule continues to limit the scope of equivalents under some circumstances. This controversial rule deems any subject matter that is disclosed in the specification, but falls outside the literal scope of the claims, to be dedicated to the public. This judicially created doctrine effectively denies patent protection, even under the doctrine of equivalents, to the subject matter that is disclosed, but left unclaimed, in the patent. This rule has been criticized both from legal and practical perspectives, and continued adherence to this rule could significantly impact the business policies and prosecution decisions of many patentees.
History of the Dedication Rule
The rule traces its origin to a more-than-a-century-old Supreme Court decision, Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 104 U.S. 350 (1881). The Miller case involved a patent for a safety lamp without chimney, with two vertically stacked domes above a perforated cap, through which the vapor and wick tubes were extended. Many years later, the patent owner filed for a reissue, claiming another embodiment of the safety lamp (which was disclosed, but not claimed in the original patent), the latter embodiment having a single dome and a chimney above it. Noting that the claim to the embodiment with a single dome and a chimney was not omitted from the original patent by mistake, the Supreme Court held that “the claim of a specific device or combination, and an omission to claim other devices or combinations apparent on the face of the patent, are, in law, a dedication to the public of that which is not claimed.” Id. at 352.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.