How to Advertise
Home | This Week's Contents  |  C&EN ClassifiedsSearch C&EN Online

 
Related Stories
Inventorship Woes
[C&EN, May 28, 2001]

GETTING A GRIP ON INTANGIBLES
[C&EN, April 2, 2001]

CHALLENGING TIMES FOR PATENT OFFICE
[C&EN, April 10, 2000]

DIVERGENT PATENT POLICIES ADDRESSED
[C&EN, Sep. 11, 2000]

Encouraging Entrpreneurship
[
C&EN, August 27, 2000]

New Law Protects U.S. Inventors
[C&EN, May 1, 2000]

E-mail this article to a friend
Print this article
E-mail the editor
 
 Table of Contents
 C&EN Classifieds
 News of the Week
 Cover Story
 Editor's Page
 Business
 Government & Policy
 Science/Technology
 Concentrates
  Business
  Government & Policy
  Science/Technology
 Education
 ACS News
 Calendars
 Books
 Digital Briefs
 ACS Comments
 Career & Employment
 Special Reports
 Letters
 Newscripts
 Nanotechnology
 What's That Stuff?
 Pharmaceutical Century

 Hot Articles
 Safety  Letters
 Chemcyclopedia

 Back Issues

 How to Subscribe
 Subscription Changes
 About C&EN
 Copyright Permission
 E-mail webmaster
NEWS OF THE WEEK
LAW
January 14, 2002
Volume 80, Number 2
CENEAR 80 2 p. 8
ISSN 0009-2347
[Previous Story] [Next Story]

Supreme Court Hears Patent Case

DAVID HANSON

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week on an old case with significant implications. Virtually all 1.2 million patents in force today could be affected by its decision.

The case is Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd., and it involves the patent for a robotic cylinder. At issue is a foundation of patent protection called the doctrine of equivalents, which prevents copycat inventors, who make an insignificant change to an invention, from getting a patent. In Festo, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that if during the patent approval process an application is amended, all protection under the doctrine of equivalents is lost.

Supporters of the ruling, such as some major semiconductor manufacturers, say that the complete bar on equivalence claims would result in more patents being filed because all involved would know that an existing patent only covers what is precisely spelled out in the patent.

But many want the decision reversed, including research universities, chemical companies, and biotechnology firms. They say eliminating the doctrine of equivalents would be a disaster. The biotech firm Chiron claims in an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief that "Festo provides a road map for a would-be copyist to avoid infringement by substituting a known, interchangeable amino acid at one position of a claimed protein."

The Supreme Court is not expected to issue a decision until this fall.

[Previous Story] [Next Story]



Top


Chemical & Engineering News
Copyright © 2001 American Chemical Society


How to Advertise
Home | Table of Contents | News of the Week | Cover Story
Business | Government & Policy | Science/Technology
Chemical & Engineering News
Copyright © 2001 American Chemical Society - All Right Reserved
1155 16th Street NW • Washington DC 20036 • (202) 872-4600 • (800) 227-5558


CASChemPortChemCenterPubs Page