<When claims are amended, they certainly are narrowed. The extra elements are almost automatically more limiting. Claims are and will be amended in these cases. That means they are NARROWER and enforcement likely becomes more difficult since the spectre of past damages no longer looms.>

I counter with the following.

Here are the details. In 2000, a federal appeals court ruled that a patent owner could not assert any element of a patent claim in an infringement lawsuit if that element was amended (including voluntary amendments) during the patent prosecution process. In other words, the appeals court ruling, if upheld, would have barred the use of the doctrine of equivalents for any amended patent claim. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down this absolute bar to the doctrine of equivalents and replaced it with a less arbitrary standard. Under the Supreme Court's standard, all amended claims are presumed to be narrowed so as to bar the doctrine of equivalents. But this presumption can be rebutted if a patent owner can demonstrate that the amendment did not surrender the equivalent at issue. In that case, the patent owner can use the doctrine of equivalents. In summary, patent owners who amended their claims prior to or after the Supreme Court's decision can still use the doctrine of equivalents if they can overcome the presumption that the amendment surrendered the equivalents at issue. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kabushiki Co. Ltd., 535 U.S. 722 (2002).

And this is the reason Moore is reluctant to amend. If it is necessary, the wording of the amended claim is critical if there is hope to use the doctrine of equivalents. IMHO Opty