About Invention Patents - Is the following statement different?

Per the Avvo Terms of Use, this does not constitute legal advice nor establish an attorney-client relationship. Consult an attorney for legal advice.

The first question to answer is whether the patent is in force, in other words are its maintenance fees paid and current? If not, the patent is expired and its claims cannot be infringed (though under some unusual circumstances, it could be "revived"). You can check patent status information here: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/maintain.jsp and https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/patentMaintFees.do

Next, it should be understood that a claim cannot infringe a claim. So, the better question is whether a product (as described by invention 2) infringes the claim as recited by invention 1.

The only way to reach an opinion about infringement is for a competent patent attorney to obtain the "prosecution history" (a.k.a. "file wrapper") of the patent and construe the meaning of the claim terms (invention 1) in light of the patent's specification and its prosecution history. This step is crucial because the meaning of claim terms very often change during the back & forth process with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, known as "prosecuting" a patent.

Your patent attorney, after studying the patent's specification and prosecution history, might form an opinion that "laminated to the edge" doesn't encompass "taped on the face". In fact, the patent prosecution history may have expressly disclaimed the "taped on" meaning for any number of reasons.

Let's assume that the prosecution history makes it clear that "laminated" doesn't literally mean "taped on." However, there is judge-made law known as the "doctrine of equivalence" that prevents someone from making insubstantial or insignificant changes to avoid a patent claim. Only after a competent study of the patent's history can it be said with any legal certainty that "taped on" is or is not equivalent to "laminated" and therefore, whether the product infringes the claim or not.

If your question is being asked to determine whether a "taped on" layer is a patentable improvement over "laminated," again, only your patent attorney can answer that after an informed consultation with you and a study of the prior art. In a "crowded" field of art, an incremental improvement might just be patentable.

Per the Avvo Terms of Use, this does not constitute legal advice nor establish an attorney-client relationship. Consult an attorney for legal advice.

This response is not intended to create a client-attorney relationship. My response is only intended to assist the questioner to find the answer themselves. Patent attorneys may practice patent law based on federal law and regulations in all 50 states. My response is specifically not directed toward or in consideration of any state law or regulation.

The specific question whether “taped on the face” infringes “laminated to the edge” may not be the best question because neither may be novel at this time. If a thing is not novel to a currently enforceable patent it cannot be infringe. (The best answers are generated by research of infringement rulings from administrative PTO rulings and court rulings. Most often the answer comes by analogy instead of direct comparison.) The cited patent does not appear to limit the size of the clear film layer respective to the substrate. The joining of the clear film layer to the substrate does appear to be limited to respective edges. Taped to the face suggests utilizing a clear film layer that does not cover the entire substrate. However it is doubtful that either practice would be novel in light of prior art. I suggest researching the patents referenced by 6,067,266 when you find the thing(s) that appears in 266 and not in the references, it should be the novelty. A person is free to practice any art found in an expired patent but it cannot be re-patented. There are some exceptions but, if a patent was issued 20 years ago or more it is most likely expired.