logo czasopisma

Articles

Vol. 59 No. 6 (2025): Law and Social Bonds no. 6 (vol. 59) 2025

Does History Matter? The Impact of Prosecution History on the Scope of Patent Protection

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36128/yxvhnb97
Submitted
25 October 2025
Published
19 December 2025 — Updated on 23 December 2025
Versions

Abstract

In the context of contemporary patent law, the role and significance of patent claims are indisputable. In the course of the application process, it is incumbent upon the applicant to define the solution for which they are seeking protection. Following the granting of a patent, the claims delineate the subject matter of the patent, a crucial element in determining the scope of the exclusivity enjoyed by the right holder. Doubts and controversies arise in both doctrine and case law. Of particular concern is the admissibility of the interpretation of claims. The rules, basis and method of the latter are the source of patent law for the purposes of determining the scope of protection resulting from the granted patent, events and circumstances occurring in the proceedings in which the patentability of the subject matter of the application was examined

References

  1. AIPPI Qustion Q229. The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent Proceedings, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bd185694d546e247ed8971c/t/5bd973ccb8a045e89c1f4205/1540977612630/Q229_SE_fin.pdf.
  2. AIPPI Summary Report Question Q175; The role of equivalents and prosecution history in defining the scope of patent protection, https://www.aippi.fr/upload/Lucerne%202003%20Q173%20174%20175/sr175english.pdf.
  3. Allison John R., Mark A. Lemley, „The (Unnoticed) Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents” Stanford Law Review, nr 59 (2007): 955-986.
  4. Bey Céline, Lydia Birch, Carsten Schulte, Actavis v Eli Lilly: the doctrine of equivalents in the UK, France and Germany, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=75e1ab43-76ec-470a-9675-8f4f0b809483.
  5. Conigliaro Matthew J., Greenberg Andrew C., Lemley Mark A., „Foreseeability in Patent Law” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, nr 3 (2001): 1045-1078.
  6. Interpretation of Patents in Europe. Application of Article 69 EPC, red. Jochen Pagenberg, William Rodolph Cornish. Kolonia–Berlin–Monachium: Heymanns, 2006.
  7. Montañá Miquel, Barcelona Court of Appeal publishes interesting judgment addressing the scope of estoppel, http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/07/11/barcelona-court-of-appeal-publishes-interesting-judgment-addressing-the-scope-of-estoppel/.
  8. Müller-Stoy Tilman, Julia Bernatska, File Wrapper Estoppel at the UPC. GRUR Patent 2023.
  9. Murray Sean, Chew Adrian, „The Unified Patent System (Europe)”, [w:] Patent Claim Interpretation, red. Edward D. Manzo. St. Paul: Thomson Reuters, 2011.
  10. Ożegalska-Trybalska Justyna, Ograniczenia ochrony patentowej a naruszenie patentu. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2019.
  11. Prawo patentowe, red. Elżbieta Traple. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2017.
  12. Szczepanowska-Kozłowska Krystyna, Ewa Nowińska, Urszula Promińska, Prawa własności przemysłowej. Przedmiot, treść i naruszenie. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2021.
  13. Szczepanowska-Kozłowska Krystyna, Patent europejski. Przedmiotowy zakres ochrony. Warszawa: KiK Konieczny i Kruszewski, 1998.
  14. Sznajder Marta, „Naruszenie patentu w świetle teorii ekwiwalentów - zasady stosowania” Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prawce z Prawa Własności Intelektualnej, nr 1 (2015): 52-91.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.