Source: http://toyosu.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:37:05+00:00

Document:
・Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Nos. 95-1066 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
・"Federal Circuit Addresses Patent Equivalents on Remand From Supreme Court." IPO Daily News (September 29, 2003).
・Brenda Sandburg (The Recorder), "Federal Circuit Tweaks 'Festo' Decision Again." law.com (September 30, 2003).
・Knorr Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., Nos. 01-1357, -1376, 02-1221, -1256 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (order).
・Knorr Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 133 F. Supp.2d 833 (E.D. Va. 2001) (partial summary judgment); 133 F. Supp.2d 843 (E.D. Va. 2001) (findings of fact and conclusions of law); Civ. A. No. 00-803-A (E.D. Va. Mar. 7, 2001) (final judgment and injunction); No. 00-803-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 2001) (amended final judgment).
・"USPTO RELEASES ANNUAL LIST OF TOP 10 ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING MOST U.S. PATENTS" USPTO (January 13, 2003).
・"Revision of Patent and Trademark Fees for FY 2003 Effective January 1, 2003." 67 Fed. Reg. 70847 (November 27, 2002).
・"Certain Fees to be Adjusted"United States Patent and Trademark Office OG Notices: 26 (November 26, 2002).
・"Final rule makes 1.5 % COLA increase for certain patent and trademark fees." 65 PTCJ 116 (December 6, 2002).
・Gregory Aharonian, "Festo oral argument scheduled for 6 February 2002." Internet Patent News (Dec. 19, 2002).
・Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., et al., 62 USPQ2d 1705 (U.S. 2001).
・Tony Mauro (American Lawyer Media), "U.S. Supreme Court Vacates 'Festo' Decision: High court rules claim amendments don't preclude application of doctrine of equivalents." Law.com (May 29, 2002).
The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
・Symbol Tech., Inc., et al.,v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., Ltd. P'ship, L.P. 00-1583 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
・Thomas G. Eshweiler, "Ford v. Lemelson and Continuing Application Laches Revisited", 79 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 457 (1997).
・"USPTO RELEASES ANNUAL LIST OF TOP 10 ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING MOST PATENTS: IBM repeats at top of list," USPTO (January 10, 2002).
・"JUDGE MCKELVIE TO RESIGN," IPO Daily News (JANUARY 9, 2002).
・Alex Chartove, "brief report on today's Festo hearing," The CAFC Study Forum (January 9, 2002).
・Tony Mauro (American Lawyer Media), "Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Landmark 'Festo' Patent Case," law.com (January 9, 2002).
・"LANDMARK PATENT EQUIVALENTS CASE ARGUED IN SUPREME COURT," IPO Daily News (January 9, 2002).
"...IPO did not take a position on this case."
・Greg Aharonian, "Observations on the Festo hearing," Internet Patent News Service (January 8, 2002).
・Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,No. 00-1543 (U.S. 2002).
・"Parties Debate Estoppel Limits On Doctrine of Equivalents Infringement." 63 Pat. TM&Copyright J. 226 (January 11, 2002).
・Exhibit Supply Co. v. Ace Patents Corp., 315 U.S. 126 (1942).
・LNP Engineering Plastics Inc. v. Miller Waste Mills Inc., No. 00-1501 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
...A very deferential standard of review, however, governs inequitable conduct determinations. Moreover, the district court's determination on intent in this case depended heavily on the assessment of witness testimony at trial. This court may not reassess, and indeed is incapable of reassessing, witness credibility and motive issues on review. Upon this record, this court detects no clear error in the district court's finding that Mr. Schwarze did not intend to deceive the PTO.
・"Prior Art Process May Be Relevant To Patented Product Made by That Process," 63 Pat. TM&Copyright J. 183 (January 4, 2002).
・"SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM 2001:For the Session Beginning January 7, 2002"
Tuesday, January 8 (3) 00-1543 FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOYGO KABUSHIKI LTD.
Jun 18 2001 Petition GRANTED.
SET FOR ARGUMENT January 8, 2002.
・"Festo v. SMC," Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C.
・Brenda Sandburg, "Patent Blockbuster Goes to High Court:IP attorneys looking to U.S. Supreme Court to clear up confusion over 'Festo'" The Recorder (June 19, 2001).
・Associated Press, "Supreme Court Agrees to Consider Closely Watched 'Copycat' Patent Case," Wall Street Journal (June 18, 2001).
・"Supreme Court Agrees to Review Decision Limiting Equivalents Infringement," 62 Pat. TM&Copyright J. (June 22, 2001).
・Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997).
・"No Equivalents Claims Are Permitted On Elements Amended for Patentability," 61 at. TM&Copyright J. (December 01, 2000).
・Insituform Technologies Inc. v. Cat Contracting Inc., No. 99-1584 (Fed. Cir. 3/26/01).
・"Festo Applies Retroactively To All Open Patent Cases," 61 Pat. TM&Copyright J. 538 (April 6, 2001).
・Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 234 F.3d 558, 56 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
・Harper v. Va. Dep't of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 97 (1993).
・James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Ga., 501 U.S. 529, 544 (1991).
・Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell Inc., 238 F.3d 1376, 57 USPQ2d 1653 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
・"Federal Circuit Applies 'Complete Bar' Rule of Festo Case in Deciding Honeywell Did Not Infringe Patent Under Doctrine of Equivalents," IPO Daily News (Feb. 8, 2001).
・Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell Inc., No. 00-1241 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
・Johnson & Johnston Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Service Co., en banc ordered, 99-1076, -1179, -1180 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
・IPO Daily News (Jan. 26, 2001).
・"SYSTEM DISCLOSED BUT NOT CLAIMED BARS EQUIVALENTS INFRINGEMENT FINDING," 52 PTCJ 198 (6/13/96).
・"Equivalents Charge May Be Based On Disclosed But Unclaimed Matter," 56 PTCJ 134 (6/4/98).
・"En Banc Federal Circuit Will Decide Status of Disclosed But Unclaimed Matter," 61 PTCJ (February 2, 2001).
・Gregory Aharonian, "Another pre-IPO IP job; BT sues Prodigy; More on Festo and DOE," Internet Patent News (Dec. 18, 2000).
・Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., No. 95-1066 (Fed. Cir. 11/29/00).
・Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 187 F.3d 1381, 51 USPQ2d 1959 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
・[Vocated] Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 172 F.3d 1361, 50 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
・[Vocated] Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 72 F.3d 857, 37 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
・"No Equivalents Claims Are Permitted On Elements Amended for Patentability," 61 Pat. TM.& Copyright J., 104 (December 1, 2000).
・IPO Daily News (November 30, 2000).
・H.R. 5364, "Business Method Patent Improvements Act of 2000" proposed by Reps. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.).
・"Summary of the Business Method Patent Improvements Act"
・"Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Edition 7 Revision 1 (E7R1), February, 2000.", USPTO (May 8, 2000).
・Henry, Mark J., "The USPTO Reverses Policy on 'Bypass Continuation' Applications.", Intellectual Property Today, p 54 (May, 2000).
・"MPEP Edition 7 Revision 1 (E7R1) Now Available in Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) and Text Files.", U.S. PTO (May 11, 2000).
・"Changes to Application Examination and Provisional Application Practice.", 65 Fed. Reg. 14865 (March 20, 2000).
・Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 98-1377, 99-1103 (Fed. Cir. 3/2/2000).
Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 94 F. Supp.2d 477, 46 USPQ2d 1874 (E.D. Va. 10/23/1998).
・"Submitting Partly Translated Reference Justified Inequitable Conduct Finding" (56 PTCJ 36, 5/14/1998).
・"Inequitable Conduct In Related Application Renders Issued Patent Unenforceable" (57 PTCJ 1404, 12/10/1998).
Copyright (C) Yasushi Toyosu, 1998−2006. All rights reserved.

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.