Difference between revisions of "HW 6 Fernando Rodriguez"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(ivalet i bot prodcts.)
 
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
C.A.Fed. (Cal.),1997.
 
C.A.Fed. (Cal.),1997.
  
Te lawsit ivolved a azardos disposal cotaier especifiall ade for sriges. I tis case it was fod tat te patet was ot,ifriged der te patet of q[eqivalets. te dge also ade soe iportat calis abot te se of te doctrie of eqivalets. ore iportatl te fact tat te clais sold be exaied idividall i order to stablis a eqivalet clai i te ifrigig patet. i tis case te dge ffod tat te ai clai ivolvig te plavceet of a slot o te cotaier was ot eqivalet i bot prodcts.
+
Te lawsuit involved a hazardous disposal container specifically made for syringes. I this case it was found that the patent was not infringed under the patent of equivalents. The judge also made some important clarifications about the use of the doctrine of equivalents. Especially important the fact that the claims should be examined individually in order to establish a equivalent claim in the infringing patent. In this case the Court found that the claim involving the placement of a slot on the container was not equivalent in both products as one was in the middle of the body and the other at the top. This case was helpful understanding the doctrine mostly due to the  clarifications made by the court than  the example itself.

Latest revision as of 13:31, 6 April 2011

Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc. 126 F.3d 1420 C.A.Fed. (Cal.),1997.

Te lawsuit involved a hazardous disposal container specifically made for syringes. I this case it was found that the patent was not infringed under the patent of equivalents. The judge also made some important clarifications about the use of the doctrine of equivalents. Especially important the fact that the claims should be examined individually in order to establish a equivalent claim in the infringing patent. In this case the Court found that the claim involving the placement of a slot on the container was not equivalent in both products as one was in the middle of the body and the other at the top. This case was helpful understanding the doctrine mostly due to the clarifications made by the court than the example itself.