The Supreme Court's decision in Festo preserves flexibility in the doctrine of equivalents, restoring some confidence in patents, but creates uncertainties of its own.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $21.58 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu, 122 S. Ct. 1831 (2002).
234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
56 US 330 (1852).
Winans, 56 US at 347 (Campbell, J., dissenting).
Graver Tank v. Linde, 339 US 608 (1950).
Pennwalt v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Hilton-Davis v. Warner-Jenkinson, 520 US 17 (1997).
Anonymous. Justices bolster patent holders' rights. New York Times, May 29 (2002), p. C4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gogoris, A., Lee, S. Festo and the US Supreme Court: Be careful what you wish for. Nat Biotechnol 20, 845–846 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0802-745
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0802-745
This article is cited by
-
US courts struggle with new patent infringement standards
Nature Biotechnology (2004)
