Substitutes for the Doctrine of Equivalents: A Response to Meurer and Nard

Lichtman critiques the argument of Mike Meurer and Craig Nard by arguing that both were wrong to think that the doctrine of equivalents is a redundant mechanism, and they are therefore wrong to conclude that the normative justification for the doctrine must come from its institutional implications r...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Georgetown law journal 2005-08, Vol.93 (6), p.2013
Main Author: Lichtman, Doug
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Copyright
Law
Licenses
Meurer, Mike
Nard, Craig
Public policy
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Lichtman critiques the argument of Mike Meurer and Craig Nard by arguing that both were wrong to think that the doctrine of equivalents is a redundant mechanism, and they are therefore wrong to conclude that the normative justification for the doctrine must come from its institutional implications rather than its effect in patent scope. On his part he concludes three virtues of the doctrine of equivalents: it can expand patent scope to cover variations on an invention, lowers the costs of claim drafting, and brings additional information to the question of patent scope.
ISSN:0016-8092