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!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page
container_issue 6
container_start_page 2013
container_title The Georgetown law journal
container_volume 93
creator Lichtman, Doug
description 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.
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_231514833</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>973012151</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p182t-44fa935963cfa9f61ef45d46f4fd4e6873035633d53f00315be5e8334ed970dc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjUtLAzEUhbNQsLb-h4v7gWRuks64K7W-qBZ8rEs6ucEpJZnm4e83oKvzHfg454LNOBe66XjfXrHrlI61cmxxxl4-yiHlMZdMCVyIkL8J7sOQ4-gJgoPNuYw_5kQ-pztYwTulKfhEkAO8UokUwXgLbybaBbt05pTo5j_n7Oth87l-ara7x-f1attMomtzI6UzPape41DBaUFOKiu1k85K0t0SOSqNaBU6zlGoAynqECXZfsntgHN2-7c7xXAulPL-GEr09XLfVl3IKuMvrtBG0w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>231514833</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Substitutes for the Doctrine of Equivalents: A Response to Meurer and Nard</title><source>Nexis UK</source><creator>Lichtman, Doug</creator><creatorcontrib>Lichtman, Doug</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0016-8092</identifier><identifier>CODEN: GLAJD5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Georgetown University Law Center</publisher><subject>Copyright ; Law ; Licenses ; Meurer, Mike ; Nard, Craig ; Public policy</subject><ispartof>The Georgetown law journal, 2005-08, Vol.93 (6), p.2013</ispartof><rights>Copyright Georgetown University Law Center Aug 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lichtman, Doug</creatorcontrib><title>Substitutes for the Doctrine of Equivalents: A Response to Meurer and Nard</title><title>The Georgetown law journal</title><description>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.</description><subject>Copyright</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Licenses</subject><subject>Meurer, Mike</subject><subject>Nard, Craig</subject><subject>Public policy</subject><issn>0016-8092</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotjUtLAzEUhbNQsLb-h4v7gWRuks64K7W-qBZ8rEs6ucEpJZnm4e83oKvzHfg454LNOBe66XjfXrHrlI61cmxxxl4-yiHlMZdMCVyIkL8J7sOQ4-gJgoPNuYw_5kQ-pztYwTulKfhEkAO8UokUwXgLbybaBbt05pTo5j_n7Oth87l-ara7x-f1attMomtzI6UzPape41DBaUFOKiu1k85K0t0SOSqNaBU6zlGoAynqECXZfsntgHN2-7c7xXAulPL-GEr09XLfVl3IKuMvrtBG0w</recordid><startdate>20050801</startdate><enddate>20050801</enddate><creator>Lichtman, Doug</creator><general>Georgetown University Law Center</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050801</creationdate><title>Substitutes for the Doctrine of Equivalents: A Response to Meurer and Nard</title><author>Lichtman, Doug</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p182t-44fa935963cfa9f61ef45d46f4fd4e6873035633d53f00315be5e8334ed970dc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Copyright</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Licenses</topic><topic>Meurer, Mike</topic><topic>Nard, Craig</topic><topic>Public policy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lichtman, Doug</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>The Georgetown law journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lichtman, Doug</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Substitutes for the Doctrine of Equivalents: A Response to Meurer and Nard</atitle><jtitle>The Georgetown law journal</jtitle><date>2005-08-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>93</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>2013</spage><pages>2013-</pages><issn>0016-8092</issn><coden>GLAJD5</coden><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Georgetown University Law Center</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0016-8092
ispartof The Georgetown law journal, 2005-08, Vol.93 (6), p.2013
issn 0016-8092
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_231514833
source Nexis UK
subjects Copyright
Law
Licenses
Meurer, Mike
Nard, Craig
Public policy
title Substitutes for the Doctrine of Equivalents: A Response to Meurer and Nard
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T18%3A07%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Substitutes%20for%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20Equivalents:%20A%20Response%20to%20Meurer%20and%20Nard&rft.jtitle=The%20Georgetown%20law%20journal&rft.au=Lichtman,%20Doug&rft.date=2005-08-01&rft.volume=93&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=2013&rft.pages=2013-&rft.issn=0016-8092&rft.coden=GLAJD5&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E973012151%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p182t-44fa935963cfa9f61ef45d46f4fd4e6873035633d53f00315be5e8334ed970dc3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=231514833&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true