Basics of writing patent non-infringement and freedom-to-operate opinions

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 7-13

  Nagori, B P ^a   Mathur, Vipin ^a  

^a Lachoo Memorial College of Science and Technology (Pharmacy Wing)   (India)

Author keywords

Claim comparison; Claim construction; Clearance search; Freedom to operate; Infringement; Infringement analysis; Patent; Patent practice; Prior art; Prosecution history estoppel

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952037098     PISSN: 09717544     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. http://inventors.about.com.
2. http://www.slwk.com.
3. http://www.omm.com.
4. http://www.foley.com.
5. http://www.uspto.gov.
6. http://www.tkhr.com.
7. Renishaw PLC v Marposs Societa Per Azioni, 158 F 3d 1243, 1249 (Fed Cir 1998);
8. York Prods Inc. v Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr, 99 F 3d 1568, 1572 (Fed Cir 1996).
9. Texas Digital Sys Inc v Telegenix Inc, 308 F 3d 1193, 1202-1203 (Fed Cir 2002) ('[T]hese materials may be the most meaningful sources of information to aid judges in better understanding both the technology and the terminology used by those skilled in the art to describe the technology').
10. -35 U.S.C. §112.
11. Markman v Westview Instruments Inc, 52 F 3d 967, 979 (Fed Cir 1995), affd, 517 US 370 (1996);
12. Vitronics Corp v Conceptronic lne, 90 F 3d 1582 ('[I]t is always necessary to review the specification to determine whether the inventor has used any terms in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning').
13. King Instruments Corp v Perego, 65 F 3d 941, 945-946 (Fed Cir 1995) (means-plus-function elements);
14. OI Corp v Tekmar Co Inc, 115 F 3d 1576, 1582-1583 (Fed Cir 1997) (step-plus-function elements).
15. Festo Corporation v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co Ltd, 234 F 3d 558 (Fed Cir 2001);
16. Vivid Techs Inc v Am Sci & Eng'g Inc, 200 F 3d 795, 804 (Fed Cir 1999) ('The prosecution history is often helpful in understanding the intended meaning as well as the scope of technical terms, and to establish whether any aspect thereof was restricted for purposes of patentability').
17. Pennwalt Corp v Durand-Wayland Inc, 833 F 2d 931, 934-935, 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1738 (Fed Cir 1987).
18. Intellicall v Phonometrics Inc, 952 F 2d 1384, 1388-1389 (Fed Cir 1992).
19. Festo Corp v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co Ltd, 535 US 722, 733 (2002).
20. Dolly Inc v Spalding & Evenflo Companies Inc, 16 F 3d 394, 397 (Fed Cir 1994).
21. Warner-Jenkinson Co Inc v Hilton Davis Chem Co, 520 US 17, 29 (1997).
22. KCJ Corp v Kinetic Concepts Inc, 223 F 3d 1351, 1359 (Fed Cir 2000).
23. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co v Mylan Pharms Inc, 170 F 3d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed Cir 1999).
24. Festo Corp v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co, 344 F 3d 1359,1367 (Fed Cir 2003).