Source: http://etheses.lib.ntust.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G0M10124006%22.&searchmode=basic
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:28:42+00:00

Document:
A patent system grants a patentee the exclusive and monopolized position. The scope of the patentee’s right is defined by interpreting the context ofthe claims in the patent, and the interests of the public and the counterparty involved in a law suit are therefore closely related to the claim interpretation. When broadly interpreted, the patentee is given a broader scope of patent right, but the alleged infringer is put in a disadvantageous position. On the other hand, when narrowly interpreted, the patentee is in the disadvantageous position, and the alleged infringer can easily escape from the claim scope. As a result, how the court interprets the claims is crucial to the determination of infringement. However, because the claims are literally drafted and defined, they are inherently limited by the words and phrases themselves, and may not completely cover all the embodiments in the future. In order to overcome this limitation, the courts of the United States have long used the doctrine of equivalent to expand the coverage of the claims from merely literal interpretations. The claim scope may thus be interpreted to cover unforeseeable future embodiments. Practically, although all claims could be read as open-ended, close-ended, or semi-open-ended, the courts' decisions predominantly focus on open-ended claims. There have not been many court decisions related to the doctrine of equivalent applying to close-ended claims, nor to close-ended languages in claims. Due to the exclusion and limitation nature of close-ended languages, there will be conflicts between limiting and expanding the claim scope while applying the doctrine of equivalent to the close-ended claims. This thesis will explore the rules of applying the doctrine of equivalent to close-ended claims based on patent regulations and courts decisions both in the US and Taiwan, and also provide some suggestions for drafting close-ended claims.
1.Robert C. Faber, Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting, Practising Law Institute, 5th Edition (2005).
2.Alan L. Porter and Scott W. Cunningham, Tech Mining: Exploiting New Technologies for Competitive Advantage, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2005).
3.Ove Granstrand, The Economics And Management Of Intellectual Property: Towards Intellectual Capitalism, Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.(1999).
1.Christopher Anthony Cotropia, Patent Claim Interpretation Methodologies and Their Claim Scope Paradigms, William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 47 (2005).
1.Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
2.KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
3.Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321 (2004).
4.CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356 (2007).
5.Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing, L.P., 327 F.3d 1364 (2003).
6.Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495 (1997).
7.Ex parte Hoffman, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1061 (1989).
8.Ex parte Markush, 1925 C.D. 126 (1925).
9.In re Ehrreich, 590 F.2d 902 (1979).
10.Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp., 748 F.2d 645 (1984).
11.In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189 (1994).
12.Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243 (1998).
13.Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d1576 (1996).
14.Cybor Corp v. FAS Technologies Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (1998).
15.The Dow Chemical Company v. Sumitomo Chemical Company, Ltd., 257 F.3d 1364 (2001).
16.Teleflex Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., 299 F.3d 1313 (2002).
17.Modine Manufacturing Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, 75 F.3d 1545 (1996).
18.Wenger Manufacturing, Inc. v. Coating Machinery Systems, Inc., 239 F.3d 1225 (2001).
19.Phonometrics, Inc. v. Northern Telecom, Inc., 133 F.3d 1459 (1998).
20.Autogiro Company of America v. United States, 384 F.2d 391 (1967).
21.K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A. and Salomon/North America, Inc., 191 F.3d 1356 (1999).
22.Karsten Manufacturing Corp. v. Cleveland Gold Company, 242 F.3d 1376 (2001).
23.Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981 (1988).
24.Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission, 871 F.2d 1054 (1989).
25.Carman Industries, Inc. v. Eugene A. Wahl and Vibra Screw, Inc, 724 F.2d 932(1983).
26.Edward H. Philips v. AWH Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (2005).
27.Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 117 S. Ct. 1040 (1997).
28.Abbott Laboratories v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, 473 F.3d 1196 (2007).
29.Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric USA, 868 F.2d 1251 (1989).
30.Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v. Arrow Communication Laboratories, Inc., 305 F.3d 1303 (2002).
31.Atlas Power Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, 720 F.2d 1569 (1984).
32.Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002).
33.Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 717 F.2d 1351 (1983).
34.Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland Inc., 833 F.2d 931 (1987).
35.Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605(1950).
36.Winans v. Denmead, 56 U.S. 330 (1853).
37.Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission, 988 F.2d 1165. (1993).
38.Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U.S. 222 (1880).
39.Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 234 F.3d 558 (2000).
40.Johnson & Johnston Associates Inc. v. R.E. Service Co. Inc., 285 F.3d 1046 (2002).
41.Vehicular Technologies Corporation v. Titan Wheel International, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377 (2000).
42.Vehicular Technologies Corporation v. Titan Wheel International, Inc.,141 F.3d 1084 (1998).
43.Mannesmann Demag Corporation v. Engineered Metal Products Co., Inc., 793 F.2d 1279 (1986).
44.Mannesmann Demag Corporation v. Engineered Metal Products Co., Inc., 605 F.Supp. 1362 (1985).
45.Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 350 F.3d 1235 (2003).
46.Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (1998).
47.Deering Precision Instruments, L.L.C. v. Vector Distribution Systems, Inc., 347 F.3d 1314 (2003).
48.Parmelee Pharmaceutical Company, and William V. Consolazio v. Lawrence C. ZINK, d/b/a Zink Safety Equipment Company, 285 F.2d 465 (1961).
49.Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U.S. 120 (1877).
50.YBM Magnex Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 145 F.3d 1317 (1998).
51.IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN NEODYMIUM-IRON-BORON MAGNETS, MAGNET ALLOYS, AND ARTICLES CONTAINING SAME, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-372, Pub. No. 3073 (1997).
52.Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098 (1996).
1.John Choy, Chris Feng, and Phil Nikkel, “Acoustic resonator structure comprising a bridge”, U.S. Pat., 8248185 (2012).
2.John Zentmyer, “Automotive vehicle differential assembly”, U.S. Pat., 5413015 (1995).
3.Walter L. Dissett, “Locking differential including a spring cap biasing assembly”, U.S. Pat., 5715733 (1998).
4.Ludger Zangs, “Vessel for metal smelting furnace”, U.S.Pat., 4207060 (1980).
5.Khashayar Karimian, Mehrnoush Motamedi, and Salvatore Zinghini, “Methods for the manufacture of amorphous cefuroxime axetil”, U.S.Pat., 5847118 (1998).
6.William V Consolazio, “Sodium chloride tablet”, U.S.Pat., 2478182 (1949).
7.Kalathur S. V. L. Narasimhan, Carol J. Willman, and Edward J. Dulis, “Oxygen containing permanent magnet alloy”, U.S. Pat., 4588439 (1986).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.