INFRINGEMENT: Difference between revisions

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
==The Doctrine of Equivalents==
==The Doctrine of Equivalents==


In some cases the claims of a patent do not literally read on a device, but the changes are so trivial that it makes sense for the device to infringe.  This is called the ''Doctrine of Equivalents'' and is best described in the famous [[Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (full text)]] case.
In some cases the claims of a patent do not literally read on a device, but the changes are so trivial that it makes sense for the device to infringe.  This is called the ''Doctrine of Equivalents'' and is best described in the famous [[Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. 339 US 605 (1950)]] case.






[[Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.]]


Justice clipart, copyright [http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/ FCIT.]
Justice clipart, copyright [http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/ FCIT.]

Revision as of 20:32, 24 February 2010

Literal Infringement

The Doctrine of Equivalents

In some cases the claims of a patent do not literally read on a device, but the changes are so trivial that it makes sense for the device to infringe. This is called the Doctrine of Equivalents and is best described in the famous Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. 339 US 605 (1950) case.



Justice clipart, copyright FCIT.