How does infringement analysis differ for product-by-process claims?
Infringement analysis for product-by-process claims differs from that of conventional product claims. According to MPEP 2113: “[I]n the context of an infringement analysis, a product-by-process claim is only infringed by a product made by the process recited in the claim.” This means that while a prior art product made by a different process can anticipate…
Read MoreHow can the preamble provide antecedent basis for claim terms?
How can the preamble provide antecedent basis for claim terms? The preamble can provide antecedent basis for claim terms, which is an important consideration in determining whether the preamble limits the scope of a claim. According to MPEP 2111.02: “Preamble statements reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to…
Read MoreHow do intervening rights affect patent infringement claims?
Intervening rights can significantly affect patent infringement claims in the following ways: They provide a defense against infringement for certain activities during the lapse period Absolute intervening rights protect specific items made, purchased, or used before reinstatement Equitable intervening rights may allow continued practice even after reinstatement They can limit the damages or remedies available…
Read MoreHow does the Hatch-Waxman Act affect patent infringement related to regulatory approval?
The Hatch-Waxman Act, codified in part as 35 U.S.C. 271(e), provides a safe harbor for certain activities that would otherwise be considered patent infringement. According to the MPEP: “Congress legislatively overruled Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceuticals, 733 F.2d 858, 221 USPQ 937 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as to products covered by 35 U.S.C. 271(e) and provided…
Read MoreWhat is the function-way-result test in the doctrine of equivalents?
The function-way-result test is a key aspect of determining equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents. MPEP 2186 references this test as follows: “[A]n analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim will thus inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute element matches the function, way, and…
Read MoreWhat is the doctrine of equivalents in patent law?
The doctrine of equivalents is a legal principle that arises in the context of patent infringement actions. As stated in MPEP 2186: “If an accused product or process does not literally infringe a patented invention, the accused product or process may be found to infringe under the doctrine of equivalents.” This doctrine allows for a…
Read MoreHow does the doctrine of equivalents relate to making a prima facie case of equivalence?
How does the doctrine of equivalents relate to making a prima facie case of equivalence? The doctrine of equivalents and making a prima facie case of equivalence are related concepts in patent law, but they apply in different contexts. The MPEP clarifies this relationship: “The determination of equivalence for purposes of the nonstatutory (obviousness-type) double…
Read MoreHow do courts determine equitable intervening rights in patent cases?
Courts consider several factors when determining whether to grant equitable intervening rights in patent cases: The nature and extent of the accused infringer’s reliance on the original patent claims The amount of time between the grant of the original patent and its reissue or reexamination The infringer’s good faith and investment in the infringing product…
Read MoreHow is the doctrine of equivalents applied in patent infringement cases?
The application of the doctrine of equivalents in patent infringement cases involves a specific inquiry. According to MPEP 2186, the essential objective inquiry is: “Does the accused product or process contain elements identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented invention?” This inquiry, established in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., focuses…
Read MoreWhat constitutes evidence of copying in patent cases?
Evidence of copying in patent cases can take various forms. According to MPEP 716.06, the Federal Circuit in Wyers v. Master Lock Co. stated that copying “requires evidence of efforts to replicate a specific product.” This can be demonstrated through: Internal company documents Direct evidence such as disassembling a patented prototype Photographing its features and…
Read More