`any person who sells a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition or of a material or device intended for use in the exercise of a patented process which constitutes an essential part of the invention, knowing that it is specially manufactured or specially adapted for use in the event of infringement of such a patent, and not a basic object or merchandise, which is suitable for substantial and non-counterfeit use, is liable as a contributing infringer”. The Court rejected an infringement equivalent to EP0918791B3 because paragraph 19 of EP0918791B3 expressly states that toxic chromium compounds may be replaced by metal catalysts. A skilled person would not consider the organic catalyst TEMPO as a solution equivalent to the ruthenium salts mentioned in claim 1. The third question was answered in the negative. If a competitor manufactures, uses, sells or imports a product patented by you, you may not maintain and permit the infringement of your intellectual property rights. Your competitor`s unauthorized use or sale of the Product constitutes a violation of your right to exclude others from the manufacture, use or sale of your patented invention. To stop the infringement, you must first send a cease and desist letter issued by a patent attorney to the alleged infringer. If a letter doesn`t stop the infringing behavior, a patent infringement lawsuit is the next step in enforcing your patent rights. In the case of a claim with an “average plus function” element, the element is literally fulfilled if (i) an accused device performs the same function recited in the element and (ii) the accused device embodies the corresponding structure, material or actions described in the specification or an equivalent thereof. 35 U.S.C§ 112, ¶6 provides that restrictions on the right “expressed as a means. for the performance of a particular function without the recital of the structure.
to support them,. be designed to cover the appropriate structure. are described in the specifications and their equivalents. In this section (6), Congress sought to provide instructions on the interpretation of allegations of “means” that might otherwise be considered indefinite. Therefore, § 6 aims to reduce the type of means that could literally satisfy the language of law. Specifically, if a claim specifies a means of performing a particular function without reciting a specific structure to perform that function, the structure disclosed in the description must be taken into account and the claim must be interpreted to cover both the disclosed structure and its equivalents. Although a patent owner may be his own lexicographer, the patent specification must support his claimed definition. In addition, the terms of a claim must be interpreted in relation to the other claims, specifications and history of the indictment. It is also important to note that the federal circuit has been consistent and consistent in its application of the law in this area, and has adopted a liberal and pro-patent stance. A second limitation of the application of equivalence theory is the scope and content of prior art.
It is common ground that the range of equivalents permitted by equivalence theory may not trap the prior art. The fundamental objective of all such assessments must be to prevent the patent owner from benefiting from coverage under the doctrine of equivalents that the patent owner could not have obtained from the Patent and Trademark Office through literal claims. In an infringement case, the only part of the patent that matters is the claims. To determine infringement, each patent claim is read and compared to the accused product. In most cases, the injury is clear. However, sometimes this is not the case. Sometimes a person will incorporate differences into their invention to avoid injury. These small differences may make the violation unclear as to the purpose of the DOE. Means by which a patent owner can assert a claim for infringement, although not all elements of the patented invention are identical in the allegedly infringing product. The purpose of the doctrine is to prevent an infringer from stealing the benefit of a patented invention by altering only minor or insignificant details of the claimed invention while maintaining the same functionality. The essential question for determining equivalence is whether the accused product or process contains elements identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented invention. The doctrine of equivalents is a legal method for a patent owner to bring an action for infringement, even if the product is not the same as the counterfeit product.9 min of reading In 1963, Van der Lely v Bamfords was approved by the House of Lords.
Their Lordships considered that if the patent holders had deliberately formulated their claim in such a way as to exclude the alleged infringing act, they should respect the wording they had chosen. The doctrine of “mark and mark” should not be applied to extend the scope of a carefully formulated claim and should in future apply only to cases of “colorable circumvention of claims”. [7] Patent holders have a variety of ways to protect their intellectual property. One of these methods is called the “Doctrine of Equivalents” (DOE). The doctrine of equivalents allows the patent owner to bring an action for infringement if the product in question is not exactly identical to the original. This prevents someone from making minor changes to a product to avoid an injury. The court also ruled that there was an equivalent violation of EP1149840B1, as all questions under the three-step test were answered in the affirmative. The court concluded that the replacement of the alleged p-toluenesulfonic acid with pyridine/water constituted basic knowledge passed on during the early years of an undergraduate course in organic chemistry. Given these limitations, the equivalents doctrine continues to be a powerful tool for plaintiffs and their lawyers to strengthen property rights – including minor changes that would otherwise have helped competitors escape injury-related liabilities. All the above questions must be answered in the affirmative in order to establish an equivalent infringement. In addition, an equivalent injury claim must withstand the molding stone test.
[3] The corresponding question is as follows: the question in Ultra-Tex concerned a process for producing concrete surfaces. Ultra-Tex claimed that its process, which used polycoat paper, was violated by the Hill Bros. process, which used paper impregnated with heavy wax. To prove the violation, Ultra-Tex used a hypothetical allegation. In the claim, however, both extended the hypothetical claim to cover the product in question and added restrictions to avoid prior art. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co.c. Linde Air Prods., Inc.
introduced a triple identity test for equivalence. Linde Air Prods held the patent for an electrical welding process. The patent was essentially a composition of the chemical configuration claim for the process. .