Prospective of Foreign Prosecution History Estoppel in Korean Patent Litigation (In Re AstraZeneca v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals)
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This Article responds to an emerging view, in patent litigation, to employ foreign prosecution history estoppel as a doctrine in claim construction. In this regard, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (hereinafter, referred to as CAFC) has found a representation made during a patent litigation in Korea to be effective as a prosecution history estoppel in a U.S. patent infringement suit, i.e., AstraZeneca v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals (04-1562). This Article reviews the foundation of this decision, such as Doctrine of Equivalents and Prosecution History Estoppel. Subsequently, the present Article examines several important cases to analyze the applicability and limitation of resting on foreign prosecution history. In addition, this Article argues that the Doctrine of Foreign Prosecution History Estoppel may be allowed under Korean Patent Practice by the Korean Supreme Court in view of the “abuse of patent rights” theory. It then explains the effects of adopting foreign estoppel in the aspects of patent holders, accused infringers and courts.
Abstract
This Article responds to an emerging view, in patent litigation, to employ foreign prosecution history estoppel as a doctrine in claim construction. In this regard, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (hereinafter, referred to as CAFC) has found a representation made during a patent litigation in Korea to be effective as a prosecution history estoppel in a U.S. patent infringement suit, i.e., AstraZeneca v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals (04-1562). This Article reviews the foundation of this decision, such as Doctrine of Equivalents and Prosecution History Estoppel. Subsequently, the present Article examines several important cases to analyze the applicability and limitation of resting on foreign prosecution history. In addition, this Article argues that the Doctrine of Foreign Prosecution History Estoppel may be allowed under Korean Patent Practice by the Korean Supreme Court in view of the “abuse of patent rights” theory. It then explains the effects of adopting foreign estoppel in the aspects of patent holders, accused infringers and courts.
참고문헌 (22)
- "AstraZeneca v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals 483 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007)", ~ (2007)
- "Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Berco, S.p.A., 714 F.2d 1110, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1983)", ~ (1983)
- "Caterpillar Tractor Corp. v. Berco S.p.A., 714 F.2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1983)", ~ (1983)
- "Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd., 535 U.S. 722, 740 (2002)", ~ (2002)
- "Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v. Hantscho Commercial Products, Inc., 21 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 1994)", ~ (1994)
- "Japanese Supreme Court Case No. 1083, 1994 (o)", ~
- "KIPO Appeal Board Case No. 1994 Huh Dang 457, February 28, 1997", ~ (1997)
- "KIPT Case No. 1993 Dang 439, September 23, 1994", ~ (1994)
- "Korean Supreme Court Case No. 91 Hu 1908, October 12, 1993", ~ (1993)
- "Korean Supreme Court Case No. 1997 Hu Dang 1108", ~
- "Korean Supreme Court Case No. 99 Hu 2853, April 12, 2002", ~ (2002)
- "Korean Supreme Court Case No. 2000 Hu 2712, June 14, 2002", ~ (2002)
- "Korean Supreme Court Case No. 2000 Da 69194, October 28, 2004", ~ (2004)
- "Korean Supreme Court Case No. 2002 Hu 2105, November 26, 2004.", ~ (2004)
- "Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F.2d 931, 945, 15 USPQ2d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1990)", ~ (1990)
- "Rhodia Chimie v. PPG Indus. Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)", ~ (2005)
- "Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003)", ~ (2003)
- "Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Excel Pharm., Inc., 356 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2004)", ~ (2004)
- "Tanabe Seiyaku Co., Ltd. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com’n, 109 F.3d 730 (Fed. Cir.1997)", ~ (1997)
- "Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d 1345, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)", ~ (2001)
- "Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1057, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1988)", ~ (1988)
- "Wang Laboratories, Inc., v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc., 103 F.3d 1571, 1577-1578, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1263, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1997).", ~ (1997)