Graver (Robins): Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Created page with "This case said that the Doctrine of equivalence says "if something does substantially the same function in substantially the same way for the same result." it is not a valid claim." |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This case said that the Doctrine of equivalence says "if something does substantially the same function in substantially the same way for the same result." it is not a valid claim. | This case said that the Doctrine of equivalence says "if something does substantially the same function in substantially the same way for the same result." it is not a valid claim. | ||
This affirms the strength of patents and doesnt allow for frivolous patents that are simply minor changes to existing ones. | |||
question was whether the substitution of manganese for magnesium constituted a patent. court ruled it is frivolous | |||
Latest revision as of 16:43, 25 March 2011
This case said that the Doctrine of equivalence says "if something does substantially the same function in substantially the same way for the same result." it is not a valid claim.
This affirms the strength of patents and doesnt allow for frivolous patents that are simply minor changes to existing ones.
question was whether the substitution of manganese for magnesium constituted a patent. court ruled it is frivolous
