檔案歷史禁反言的適用範圍

檔案歷史禁反言的適用範圍
In Aquatex v Techniche Solutions (CAFC 05-1088)

Prosecution history estoppel can prevent a patentee from relying on the doctrine of equivalents when the patentee relinquishes subject matter during the prosecution of the patent, either by amendment or argument. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “The doctrine of prosecution history estoppel limits the doctrine of equivalents when an applicant makes a narrowing amendment for purposes of patentability, or clearly and unmistakably surrenders subject matter by arguments made to an examiner.” Salazar, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13517, at *6; see Festo II, 535 U.S. at 736 (narrowing amendment for purposes of patentability); Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v. Arrow Communication Labs., Inc., 305 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (argument-based estoppel).

曾經見過“argument-based estoppel”？我好像看過又好像沒有看過，就算是看過也不知道它是什麼意思，現在終於知道了。

不 僅 amendment 會適用禁反言，連 argument 也會而以 argument 適用禁反言的就叫做“argument-based estoppel”。但是要適用“argument-based estoppel”，檔案歷史就必須“ evince（顯示出） a clear and unmistakable surrender of subject matter.”，因此模擬兩可的話就不能適用。

To invoke argument-based estoppel, the prosecution history “must evince a clear and unmistakable surrender of subject matter.” Pharmacia, 170 F.3d at 1377 (internal quotation omitted). To determine if subject matter has been relinquished, an objective test is applied, inquiring “whether a competitor would reasonably believe that the applicant had surrendered the relevant subject matter.” Cybor Corp., 138 F.3d at 1457.