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. ( | 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 [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.