Rethinking Prosecution History Estoppel
نویسنده
چکیده
Under the rule of prosecution history estoppel, patent applicants who amend their claims during the course of patent prosecution assume a significant risk: the risk that a court will later construe the changes as concessions that should be read to limit patent scope. This risk is exacerbated by strong evidentiary presumptions under which courts are to assume, unless the patentee presents sufficient evidence to the contrary, that every change triggers estoppel, and that the resulting estoppel forfeits everything except that which the revised claim language literally describes. The justification for these presumptions is that, implemented in this fashion, prosecution history estoppel makes patent scope more predictable. In this Essay, I argue that the benefit comes at too high a price. Drawing on a large empirical study of patent prosecution, I show that, because of these evidentiary presumptions, estoppel is dangerously sensitive to differences among patent examiners and differences across technology categories. That is, estoppel treats similar applications in dissimilar ways, not because of differences on the merits, but instead because of the personal characteristics of the examiners involved and because of differences inherent to the types of technology at issue. A better rule, I argue, would minimize the significance of examiner and technology disparities by reversing the current evidentiary presumptions and thus recognizing estoppel only where there is clear evidence that the applicant and the examiner intended to forfeit a given scope of coverage.
منابع مشابه
Reasonable Reliance in Estoppel by Conduct
The basis on which an estoppel by conduct is established is a keenly debated question. Theories based on promise and conscience have recently been propounded in the literature: Michael Pratt has argued that equitable estoppel must be based on promise,* 1 while Michael Spence has argued that the central criterion of estoppel by conduct is unconscionable conduct.2 In advancing these promise and c...
متن کاملQabusnama of Persian Architecture: Rethinking the history of making Gunbad-i Qābus
This study aims to investigate the origins, concepts, and symbolic and formal functions of the Gunbad-i Qābus tomb-tower based on interpretation of its inscription. This hermeneutic analysis addresses the historical context of the building formation, rethinking the concepts presented in its ten-piece inscription using philological methods, and compares it with the inscriptions of some other to...
متن کاملCorrecting the record: Australian prosecutions for manslaughter in the medical context.
The failure to prosecute Dr Jayant Patel successfully for any of the deaths associated with his time as Director of Surgery at Bundaberg Base Hospital was received in some quarters as an abject failure of the criminal law to deal adequately with significant wrongdoing. The case itself, the multiple public inquiries and the significant expense to pursue, extradite and prosecute Patel, resulting ...
متن کاملCausality and collateral estoppel: process and content of recent SSRI litigation.
In Tobin v. SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals a jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming found that the medication Paxil "can cause some individuals to commit homicide and/or suicide," and that it was a legal cause of the deaths in this case. A motion was recently put before the United States District Court for the District of Utah to adopt the findings of the Tobin case--vi...
متن کامل