Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Festo_Corp._v._Shoketsu_Kinzoku_Kogyo_Kabushiki_Co. an entity of type: Thing
Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law that examined the relationship between the doctrine of equivalents (which holds that a patent can be infringed by something that is not literally falling within the scope of the claims because a somewhat insubstantial feature or element has been substituted) and the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel (which holds that a party who makes a change to a patent application to accommodate the requirements of patent law cannot claim infringement by equivalents of an element that was narrowed by that change).
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Festo Corporation, Petitioner v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Company, Ltd., et al.
xsd:integer
1720601
xsd:integer
987258961
<second>
25920.0
rdf:langString
unanimous
rdf:langString
U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8.; 35 U.S.C. §112
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
722
xsd:integer
535
xsd:gMonthDay
--01-08
xsd:integer
2002
rdf:langString
Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,
xsd:gMonthDay
--05-28
xsd:integer
2002
rdf:langString
Festo Corporation, Petitioner v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Company, Ltd., et al.
rdf:langString
Claim amendments must be examined in context of the prosecution history and do not necessarily bar assertions under the Doctrine of Equivalents due to prosecution history estoppel. Judgment of the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded.
rdf:langString
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.
rdf:langString
Kennedy
rdf:langString
Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law that examined the relationship between the doctrine of equivalents (which holds that a patent can be infringed by something that is not literally falling within the scope of the claims because a somewhat insubstantial feature or element has been substituted) and the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel (which holds that a party who makes a change to a patent application to accommodate the requirements of patent law cannot claim infringement by equivalents of an element that was narrowed by that change).
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
8194