• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Yale
    • Yale Journal of Law and Technology
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Yale
    • Yale Journal of Law and Technology
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of openYLSCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IN VARIOUS PATENT REGIMES-DOES ANYBODY HAVE IT RIGHT?

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    11_11YaleJL_Tech261_2008_2009_.pdf
    Size:
    2.775Mb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    Pumfrey, Nicholas
    Adelman, Martin
    Basheer, Shamnad
    Dave, Raj
    Meier-Beck, Peter
    Nagasawa, Yukio
    Rospatt, Maximilian
    Sulsky, Martin
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/7764
    Abstract
    The doctrine of equivalents is arguably one of the most important aspects ofpatent law. The protection a patent confers is meaningless if its scope is determined to be so narrow that trivial changes to a device bring it out of the bounds of the patent. One of the greatest challenges courts and legislatures therefore face in patent law is to create rules for determining patent scope that maintain the protection a patent is meant to confer while still keeping the patent monopoly within reasonable bounds. Despite the general unity in patent laws among developed countries, the difficulty of this task has led to different results in different jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions have chosen to determine patent scope under a doctrine of equivalents, while others have maintained the position that adequate scope can be found within the meaning of a patent's claim. Even jurisdictions which agree that a doctrine of equivalents should apply differ significantly in its application. This Article provides an examination offour patent jurisdictions the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan-and their separate answers to the question of patent scope. This Article does not purport to decide which jurisdiction has the right solution, but merely points out that different solutions can be and have been found for the question of equivalents. Although a traditional case of patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents may find protection under all four jurisdictions, the laws of these countries start to diverge on questions regarding after-arising technology, the essential elements of a patent claim, and equivalents that clearly fall outside the language of a claim. One cannot answer the question, "Does anybody have it right?" without first considering these issues.
    Collections
    Yale Journal of Law and Technology

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2023)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.