Source: http://etheses.lib.ntust.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G0M10124007%22.&searchmode=basic
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:49:03+00:00

Document:
Claim is the most material part in the patent specification because patentees mainly use it to define the scope of the patent. Nevertheless, the recent judgments which United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) have announced reveals that the background of the invention in the specification also has the possibility to narrow the scope of doctrine of equivalents. Thus, this paper is to do research on this issue. First, it discusses the concepts and important judgments of literal infringement, doctrine of equivalents, equitable estoppel, and the limitations of doctrine of equivalents. Also, this paper refers to Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyu Kabushiki Co., Ltd. Case, which made the great impact of the use of doctrine of equivalents to summarize the tendency of determining doctrine of equivalents and equitable estoppel in CAFC.
Finally, this paper investigates several recent years CAFC judgments, which led to equitable estoppel and were narrowed the scope of doctrine of equivalents on account of background of invention in their patent specifications to conclude regulations of CAFC and present the solutions and strategies to this issue.
Robert L. Harmon, Patents and the Federal Circuit , 7th Edition, BNA books, Page 447, 2005.
Robert L. Harmon, Patents and the Federal Circuit (7th Edition), BNA books, 2005, Page 454~456,.
Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950).
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 234 F.3d 558 (2000).
Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002).
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Peter v. Active Mfg. Co.,129 U.S. 530, 537(1889).
United States v. Harvey Steel Co., 227 U.S. 165 (1913).
American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Manitowoc Co., Inc., 448 F. Supp. 1372 (D. Wis. 1978).
Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
959 F.2d 948,950; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 4776; 22 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA)1231, (1992).
32 F.3d 542,547; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20586; 31 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1666, (1994).
96 F.3d 1398,1405; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 24983; 40 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1161, (1996).
Ross Winans v. Adam, Edward, and Talbot Denmead, 56 U.S. 330 (1853).
Union Paper-Bag Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U.S. 120, 125(1877).
Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters et al., 280 US 30 (1929).
Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997).
Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates 904 F.2d 677 (1990).
Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int’l, Inc.508 U.S. 83, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1721 (1993).
Johnson & Johnson Associates Inc. v. R.E. Service Co. Inc.285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 104 U.S. 350, 352 (1881).
Dolly, Inc. v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos., 16 F.3d 394, 397, 29 USPQ2d 1767, 1769 (Fed.Cir.1994).
Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 44 USPQ2d 1103 (Fed.Cir.1997).
Moore U.S.A.,Inc. v. Standard Register Co.,56 USPQ2d 1225(Fed.Cir.2000).
Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Cook Biotech Inc. V. Acell, Inc. 460 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway LR 2 App Cas 439 (1876-77).
Weber Elec. Co. v. EH Freeman Elec. Co., 256 U.S. 668 (1921).
Exhibit Supply Co. v. Ace Patents Corp., 315 U.S. 126(1942).
Diversitech Corporation v. Century Steps, Inc., Defendant-Cross, 850 F.2d 675 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Dawn Equipment Co. v. Kentucky Farms Inc., 140 F.3d 1009 (Fed.Cir.1998).
SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed.Cir.2001).
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 114 F.3d 1547, 42 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed.Cir.1997).
Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Manufacturing, Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed.Cir.1996).
J & M Corporation. v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.＆Radio Sound, Inc., 269 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
L.B. Plastics, Inc. v. Amerimax Home Products, Inc., 499 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Schwing GmbH v. Putzmeister Aktiengesellschaft, 305 F.3d 1318 (Fed.Cir.2002).
Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., No. 2010-1402 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2011).
Markman, "Inventory Control and Reporting System for Drycleaning Stores", U.S. Reissue Pat., 33054 (1989).
Johnston James A, ‘’Easy to handle extreemly thin copper foil, free of dust, finger prints, particle and grease spots, prevents resin bleeding around the tooling pins’’, U.S. Pat., 5153050 (1992).
Kurt Stoll, ‘’Magnetically coupled arrangement for a driving and a driven member’’, U.S. Pat., 4354125 (1982).
Carroll; George, ‘’Pneumatic device for moving articles’’, U.S. Pat., 3779401(1973).
Dawn Equipment Company, ‘’Mechanism for selectively repositioning a farm implement’’, U.S. Pat., 5129282 (1992).
Scimed Life Systems, Inc, ‘’Balloon catheter with distal guide wire lumen’’, U.S. Pat., 5156594(1992).
Scimed Life Systems, Inc, ‘’Balloon catheter with distal guide wire lumen’’, U.S. Pat., 5217482 (1993).
Scimed Life Systems, Inc, ‘’Balloon catheter with distal guide wire lumen’’, U.S. Pat., 5395334 (1995).
Mount and plug mount’’, U.S. Reissue Pat., 34525 (1994).
L.B. Plastics Limited, ‘’Composite gutter guard’’, U.S. Pat., 6463700(2002).
R. Kern McGary, S. William Jentzen, ‘’Safety syringe with retractable needle’’, U.S. Pat., 5053010 (1991).

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.