FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W299408830> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W299408830 endingPage "234" @default.
• W299408830 startingPage "209" @default.
• W299408830 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION Determining whether a patent is infringed is a question of fact1 for a jury and frequently a difficult one. juries are generally asked to determine, first, whether there is literal infringement, and second, whether there is infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. A finding of either type of infringement is sufficient to render the accused party liable. juries frequently become confused in patent cases involving claims. The confusion stems from the fact that under 35 U.S.C. § 112, determining literal infringement of a means-plus-function claim requires the jury to determine whether the accused product is to the subject matter disclosed in the patent. The subsequent determination of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents also requires the jury to determine whether the accused product is an equivalent. The question that arises, then, is whether an equivalent under § 112 is the same thing as an equivalent under the doctrine of equivalents. In other words, is there one type of or two? According to the Federal Circuit, the expert court in patent law, the general rule is that there is only one type of equivalence. There are, however, two exceptions2 under which an accused product may be an equivalent for doctrine of equivalents purposes (resulting in infringement by equivalence) and yet not be a § 112 equivalent (resulting in literal infringement). In cases involving one of those two exceptions, the accused product cannot be under § 112, but the jury must still determine whether the accused product is nevertheless under the doctrine of equivalents. In cases involving neither exception, a finding of requires evidence of both literal infringement under § 112 and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, while a finding of should result in infringement at all. Outside of the two exceptions, therefore, a jury should never say no to literal infringement and yes to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. And yet, juries return verdicts finding exactly that. Recent verdicts indicate the problem is current and ongoing.3 These verdicts demonstrate juries' misunderstanding of the law. Sometimes the erroneous verdict is corrected by the district court, and sometimes the Federal Circuit has to set things right on appeal. Regardless of whether the jury alone was confused, or whether the district court was also mistaken, there exists a common failure to communicate to juries a statement of the law that is both clear and correct. This failure has the potential to seriously harm defendants in patent infringement cases involving means-plus-function claims because, as this Comment will demonstrate, where a jury's confusion regarding the notion of leads to simultaneous findings of literal infringement but infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, that second finding may be incorrect as a matter of law, and the defendant may be wrongly held liable for infringement. This Comment proposes jury instructions designed to clearly and correctly state the law and lead a jury to reach a correct verdict based on its determinations of fact. The instructions allow a jury the discretion to which it is entitled in determining questions of fact, while at the same time precluding the jury from returning a verdict that is incorrect as a matter of law once the jury has made its factual determinations. Following this Introduction, Part II explains several patent law fundamentals, including the legal standards for finding literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Part II also explains the meanings of means-plus-function claims and the standards for infringement. Part III demonstrates how jury confusion regarding can lead to verdicts that are incorrect as a matter of law and harmful to both defendants and plaintiffs. Part III also provides two examples of recent cases in which juries reached incorrect verdicts due to confusion about the term equivalence in connection with literal infringement under § 112 and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. …" @default.
• W299408830 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W299408830 creator A5038535644 @default.
• W299408830 date "2004-01-01" @default.
• W299408830 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W299408830 title "A Proposed Solution to Jury Confusion in Patent Infringement Cases Involving Means-Plus-Function Claims" @default.
• W299408830 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W299408830 type Work @default.
• W299408830 sameAs 299408830 @default.
• W299408830 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W299408830 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W299408830 hasAuthorship W299408830A5038535644 @default.
• W299408830 hasConcept C11171543 @default.
• W299408830 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W299408830 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W299408830 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W299408830 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W299408830 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W299408830 hasConcept C2777029862 @default.
• W299408830 hasConcept C2778083451 @default.
• W299408830 hasConcept C2781140086 @default.
• W299408830 hasConcept C34974158 @default.
• W299408830 hasConceptScore W299408830C11171543 @default.
• W299408830 hasConceptScore W299408830C15744967 @default.
• W299408830 hasConceptScore W299408830C17744445 @default.
• W299408830 hasConceptScore W299408830C199539241 @default.
• W299408830 hasConceptScore W299408830C2776119841 @default.
• W299408830 hasConceptScore W299408830C2776211767 @default.
• W299408830 hasConceptScore W299408830C2777029862 @default.
• W299408830 hasConceptScore W299408830C2778083451 @default.
• W299408830 hasConceptScore W299408830C2781140086 @default.
• W299408830 hasConceptScore W299408830C34974158 @default.
• W299408830 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W299408830 hasLocation W2994088301 @default.
• W299408830 hasOpenAccess W299408830 @default.
• W299408830 hasPrimaryLocation W2994088301 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W1482349421 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W1503658679 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W216579477 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W2221088386 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W2268152377 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W2273022408 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W2328545026 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W2461269644 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W2487359657 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W262926229 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W2686358987 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W2993425765 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W3082740531 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W3121232252 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W3121258289 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W3124465449 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W349391258 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W73756677 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W1956846870 @default.
• W299408830 hasRelatedWork W3124880934 @default.
• W299408830 hasVolume "2004" @default.
• W299408830 isParatext "false" @default.
• W299408830 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W299408830 magId "299408830" @default.
• W299408830 workType "article" @default.