Post-Festo, can the doctrine of equivalents still be effective in asserting infringement of a claimed invention? The answer is yes, but with great difficulty.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 US ----; 62 USPQ2d 1705 (No. 00-1543) (2002).
Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 US 605; 85 USPQ 328 (1950).
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 US 17; 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997).
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 56 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Mycogen Plant Science Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 59 USPQ2d 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2001), rehearing of Mycogen Plant Science Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 58 USPQ2d 1891 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Genentech Inc. v. The Wellcome Foundation Ltd., 31 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Abbott Laboratories v. Dey L.P., 62 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Johnson & Johnston Associates Inc. v. R.E. Service Co., 62 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Auer, H. Equivalents in biotechnology patents. Nat Biotechnol 21, 329–331 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0303-329
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0303-329
