Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts Inc. v. Cardinal Industries, Inc. & Dawn Equipment Co. v. Kentucky

Schultz, Jason
January 1999
Berkeley Technology Law Journal;1999, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p173
Academic Journal
Focuses on restrictions imposed on the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) for the United States patent infringement cases, Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts Inc. v. Cardinal Industries Inc. and Dawn Equipment Co. v. Kentucky Farms Inc. Definition of doctrine of equivalents (DOE); Coextensive equivalents and contemporary technologies; DOE using means-plus-function claims.


Related Articles

  • Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank & College Savings.... Polse, Jennifer L. // Berkeley Technology Law Journal;2000, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p373 

    Focuses on the case involving Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank and College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board on the issue on patent infringement in Berkeley, California. Violations on the Lanham Act and the Patent...

  • Streamlined procedure tackles patent cheats. Hunter, Joanne // Packaging Magazine;6/12/2003, Vol. 6 Issue 11, p5 

    Reports on the benefits of a streamlined litigation process that will make it cheaper and faster to fight patent infringers in England and Wales. Comments of patent and trademark solicitors Frank B. Dehn & Co. about the patent infringement litigation procedure; Advise to claimants and...

  • ASK THE COMMISH.  // Inventors' Digest;Mar2008, Vol. 24 Issue 3, p11 

    The article presents an answer to a question about the issue that Patent Reform Act of 2007 encourages infringement.

  • Recent Developments in Patent Law. Antush, Ronald A. // Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal;Fall99, Vol. 8 Issue 1, p71 

    Provides a review of selected patent opinions which involve significant decisions in areas of patent law in the U.S. Details of the case Pitney Bowes Inc. versus Hewlett-Packard Co.; Decision on the case of Festo Corp. versus Shoketsu Kinsoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.; Issues on sovereign immunity...

  • Recent Developments in Patent Law. Darrow, Christopher G. // Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal;Spring2002, Vol. 10 Issue 3, p379 

    Focuses on developments in patent laws in the U.S. Applicability of patenting plants; Challenges on the validity of a patent; Source of actual notice of infringement.

  • Patent Infringement. Eisenberg, Howard M. // BioPharm International;Sep2001, Vol. 14 Issue 9, p60 

    Discusses the law of patent infringement in the United States. Definition of direct and indirect infringement; Applicability of the law of infringement to patents that claim products and to patented processes; Complexity of determining infringement; Parts of a patent claim; Application in the...

  • Patently, the innovation business is risky. Gome, Amanda // BRW;8/23/2001, Vol. 23 Issue 33, p42 

    Discusses the limitations of patent laws in Australia. Details of an infringement case filed by inventor Bruce Morrison against a multinational firm that copied his product but changed the method of production; Comparison of the patent policies of the United States and Australia; Lack of patent...

  • Holding the Sovereign's Universities Accountable for Patent Infringement after Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank. Polse, Jennifer // California Law Review;Mar2001, Vol. 89 Issue 2, p507 

    Suggests that the United States Congress should condition receipt of a federal research grant on waiver of sovereign immunity from violations of patent law stemming from the funded research. Details on the eleventh amendment immunity from suit for patent infringement; Information on the...

  • Judge Says Florida Court Has Jurisdiction in DAC-Texas MAC Case. Hume, Lynn // Bond Buyer;4/25/2007, Vol. 360 Issue 32615, p5 

    The article reports on the decision of the federal court in Orlando, Florida which favored on disclosure services provider Digital Assurance Certification LLC (DAC) against the Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) of Texas. The court ruled that Texas MAC has jurisdiction over the patent infringement...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics