October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1543
Does a patent holder lose rights by changing claim language?
Festo seeks to limit the doctrine of equivalents. Shoketsu argues the doctrine remains broad.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Neustadt addressed a question from Justice Breyer.
Mr. Bork referred to the parties as SMC.
Chief Justice Rehnquist confirmed the case number.
Mr. Wallace responded to a question from the Chief Justice.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-60 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 3-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 11-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 33-35
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on the scope of patent protection. Festo argues that changing claim language limits the patent. Shoketsu contends the doctrine of equivalents still applies broadly.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-60 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 3-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 11-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 8, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-11
What each side wants
Festo wants the Court to limit the doctrine of equivalents.
Shoketsu wants the Court to maintain broad patent protection.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-60 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 3-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 11-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
What each side says
Festo argues that amending claims restricts the patent scope.
Shoketsu argues that the doctrine of equivalents remains fully applicable.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-60 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 3-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 11-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked about a specific statutory section.
Justice Breyer asked about the scope of the doctrine.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 33-35
Why it matters
The outcome defines the boundaries of patent rights. It affects how inventors draft claims. It impacts the cost of patent litigation. It shapes the balance between innovation and competition.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-60 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 3-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 11-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 33-35
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-60 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 3-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 11-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-60 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 3-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 11-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.