Doctrine of Equivalents: Tips for Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Patent Prosecutors (RECORDING)

This webinar takes as its starting point the May opinion of the Federal Circuit in Amgen v. Sandoz, which stated that “the doctrine of equivalents [DOE] applies only in exceptional cases” and is not “simply the second prong of every infringement charge, regularly available to extend protection beyond the scope of the claims.” This led some experts to wonder if this decision heralded a new emphasis by the Court — or was merely a restatement of existing case law. 

In addition to providing insights for litigators, this program will also prove useful to patent prosecutors by highlighting prosecution pitfalls that can lessen the chance of the patentee proving infringement by the DOE in the future. 

 Our panel of experienced litigators will analyze decisions including Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. v. IPS Group, Inc., Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp., Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.and others.  They will discuss: 

  • How limitations on DOE play a role, and difficulties plaintiffs face in making a case for the DOE 
  • Trying to find vitality in the DOE, such as by successfully applying the “function/result/way” or the “insubstantial difference” test and 
  • The danger to successful plaintiffs from the “ensnarement” doctrine, which has seen increased application and can play out as a trial within a trial 


      Brian Coggio, Fish & Richardson

      Mark Feldstein, Finnegan

      Sailesh Patel, Schiff Hardin

Brian Coggio

Fish & Richardson

Brian Coggio is of counsel at Fish & Richardson.  He has extensive experience as a senior trial attorney and counselor and has litigated disputes across a wide range of technologies with a particular focus in the chemical, pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology areas. Brian has also represented clients in numerous cases under the Hatch-Waxman Act, and is the author of “Ensnarement: A Second Bite at the Non-Infringement Apple.”


Mark Feldstein


Mark Feldstein is a partner at Finnegan. He is a patent and trade secret litigator in U.S. district courts and also serves as lead counsel for clients in post-grant trial proceedings at the USPTO. He also maintains an active patent prosecution practice on behalf of domestic and foreign clients.  His practice encompasses issues involving pharmaceuticals, biochemistry, polymers, small molecule chemistry, nanotechnology, optics, and medical and analytic devices.  He holds a Ph.D. in chemistry.


Sailesh Patel

Schiff Hardin

Sailesh Patel is a partner at Schiff Hardin. He is co-leader of its IP Group, also co-chairs the firm’s Pharmaceuticals and Biologics Patent Litigation Team, and serves on the firm’s executive committee. He frequently represents generic companies in Hatch-Waxman litigation. He has also represented clients in cases involving wind and solar technology, food processing, automotive components, and software, among other industries.  He has argued several cases at the Federal Circuit that involved the doctrine of equivalents.


Doctrine of Equivalents: Tips for Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Patent Prosecutors (RECORDING)
Open to view video.
Open to view video.
Evaluation Survey
11 Questions
CLE Credit
4 Questions
4 Questions CLE credit will be available for registered attendees only. If you would like CLE credit for this webinar, please complete the following questions. IPO will apply for CLE for all live programs in the majority of the states that require CLE. IPO will not be applying for CLE in the states of Florida, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia, or Texas (attorneys in TX may submit up to 5 hours of self-study credit). Once IPO has received approval from the state(s) CLE boards , certificate(s) of attendance will be available for download from your dashboard.