Clarity of Language for Doctrine of Equivalents
The recent NextStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications decision reinforces the critical importance of precise language in patent litigation, particularly concerning the doctrine of equivalents. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's finding of non-infringement, highlighting significant deficiencies in NextStep's evidentiary presentation.
Central to the court's decision was NextStep's expert testimony, which the court found lacking in specificity and proper claim analysis.
Restoring Clarity to Patent Eligibility by Sticking to the Law
The current patent eligibility framework in the U.S. has faced criticism for straying too far from the actual wording of the patent statute. The law clearly states that both "inventions" and "discoveries" are eligible for patents.
However, the courts have introduced various exceptions, like banning patents on "abstract ideas" and "natural phenomena," even though those terms don't appear in the statute. In one case, the Supreme Court even said courts shouldn't add exceptions that aren't in the law.
