1. *  Mr. Remus is an associate with Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, an intellectual property law firm located in Chicago.

2. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (en banc).

3. Graver Tank & Mfg. v. Linde Air Product Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608 (1950).

4. Id. at 607.

5. London v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 946 F.2d 1534, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

6. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29 (1997).

7. McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424 (1891).

8. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1470, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 140 F.3d 1449, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

9. See Litton, 140 F.3d at 1462.

10. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (en banc).

11. Id. at 568.

12. Id. at 569.

13. Id. at 578.

14. Id. at 575.

15. Id.

16. Id. at 577.

17. Id. at 576.

18. Id. at 612-13.

19. Id.

20. Id. at 618.

21. Id. at 600-02 ("[A]nyone who wants to steal a patentee's technology need only review the prosecution history to identify patentability-related amendments, and then make a trivial modification to that part of its product corresponding to an amended claim limitation.").

22. See KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1359-60 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

23. Compare Builders Concrete, Inc. v. Bremerton Concrete Products Co., 757 F.2d 255, 260 (Fed. Cir. 1985) with Durango Assocs. v. Reflange, Inc., 843 F.2d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (scope of allowed claim was not affected by subsequent amendment of another claim).

24. American Permahedge, Inc. v. Barcana, Inc., 105 F.3d 1441, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1997).