Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg B. who wrote (20404)	12/24/1998 2:49:00 PM
From: Ingenious	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Greg, not to confuse you (or your counsel) but patents presumptively have passed the test you posted. Thus, what you posted has more to do with a question of validity and not scope. Hopefully that makes sense. Rather, claim scope, in part, is determined based upon 1) the plain language of the claims 2) the language of the claims as described by the patentee in the four corners of the patent document 3) extrinsic evidence when necessary (ie experts, the dictionary, scholarly articles/books etc.). Further, one must always consider the doctrine of equivalents when construing the scope of the claims. This latter test under the doctrine of equivalents is the area of interest one needs to be careful of when looking at a patent. Generally, an insubstantial difference between a patent and the alleged infringing technology does not suffice to limit damages under this doctrine. IMHO