Thanks Gus for the reference to the Law Journal article; it really
answered alot of questions about what the heck is going on with
the Mitsubishi case. Apparently, in this situation, if Prosecution
History Estoppel is being used as a defense, then the Doctrine of
Equivalents must have been used to find in favor of Ampex (by the
jury). As the Law Journal described it, even though the patent may
not be literally infringed, the Doctrine of Equivalents can be used
to find guilt if the accused product contains features that are
equivalent in nature. And, apparenlty, Ampex made some
ammendment to the scope of their claim during the prosecution,
which under current law, if you receive a favorable judgement
under the Doctrine of Equivalents, you must prove why this
change should not operate as estoppel. In other words, why this
change to the scope of their claim should still allow them to
receive a favorable judgement in this case.
So, to me, this definately sounds like a ridciulous technicality. So
what if Ampex made this ammendment while the trial was still
going on. The jury was obviously made aware of this change, yet
they still ruled in favor of Ampex. So, if Mitsubishi is guilty, then
they are guilty, and hopefully legal technicalities will not get in
the way of a fair judgement in this case.
Rgds,
--Wayne-- |
