Results for prosecution history estoppel.
Ajinomoto Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
When a word is changed during prosecution, the change tends to suggest that the new word differs in meaning in some way from the original word.
Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC
The concept of prosecution history estoppel from utility patents applies to design patents as well. Amendments made in response to a restriction for a design patent can result in prosecution history estoppel.
Integrated Tech. Corp. v. Rudolph Techs., Inc.
Narrowing amendments related to patentability precludes a patentee from recapturing subject matter surrendered by those amendments via the doctrine of equivalents.
Funai Electric Co. v. Daewoo Electronic Corp.
A successor corporation is liable as a successor in interest for judgments against a U.S. predecessor.
Edwards Lifesciences v. Cook, Inc.
The Federal Circuit concludes that a district court was correct in construing various claim terms as having the same meaning, in spite of apparent claim differentiation and broadening amendments made with respect to some of the terms during prosecution.
Felix v. American Honda
A narrowing amendment to a claim, even if the amendment does not place the claim in condition for allowance, may result in prosecution history estoppel barring assertion of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (Festo VIII)
Regarding prosecution history estoppel, the Supreme Court establishes a presumption that a narrowing amendment made for a reason related to patentability surrenders the entire territory between the original and amended claim limitations, and that this presumption may be rebutted under certain instances.
Honeywell International Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.
The Federal Circuit holds that rewriting a dependent claim into independent form, coupled with the cancelation of its original independent claim, gives rise to prosecution history estoppel.