US Legal Forms
Legal definitions
I
Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents

Understanding Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents

Q: How do I prove infringement under the doctrine of equivalents?

You must show that the accused product performs the same function in a similar way, with insubstantial differences.

Q: Can I handle a patent infringement case without a lawyer?

While it is possible to use legal templates, consulting with a patent attorney is recommended for complex cases.

Definition & Meaning

The doctrine of equivalents is a legal principle in patent law that allows a patent holder to claim infringement even when the accused product or process does not literally meet the patent's claims. This doctrine is designed to prevent others from benefiting from an invention by making only minor changes to avoid direct infringement. Essentially, if a product performs the same function in a similar way to the patented invention, it may be considered an equivalent and thus infringe the patent.

Table of content

Legal Use & context

The doctrine of equivalents is primarily used in patent infringement cases within civil law. It plays a crucial role in protecting inventors' rights by ensuring that minor alterations to a patented invention do not allow competitors to exploit the invention without permission. Users can often manage related legal processes through resources like US Legal Forms, which provide templates for filing patent infringement claims or defenses.

Key legal elements

Real-world examples

Here are a couple of examples of abatement:

For instance, if a patented device has a specific type of spring and a competitor uses a different type of spring that achieves the same result, the competitor may still be liable for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. This is because the change is deemed insubstantial in terms of functionality. (hypothetical example)

Relevant laws & statutes

Key cases that have shaped the doctrine of equivalents include:

Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950) - Established the insubstantial differences test.
Pactiv Corp. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18877 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2000) - Clarified the application of the doctrine in specific contexts.

Comparison with related terms

Term	Definition	Difference
Literal Infringement	Occurs when a product or process directly matches the claims of a patent.	Literal infringement requires exact matching, while the doctrine of equivalents allows for minor differences.
Doctrine of First Sale	A principle that limits the patent holder's rights after the first sale of the patented item.	The doctrine of first sale relates to ownership rights, whereas the doctrine of equivalents pertains to infringement.

Common misunderstandings

What to do if this term applies to you

If you believe your patent rights are being infringed under the doctrine of equivalents, consider the following steps:

Document the similarities and differences between your patent and the accused product.
Consult with a legal professional who specializes in patent law for tailored advice.
Explore US Legal Forms for templates that can assist you in filing a patent infringement claim.

Find the legal form that fits your case

Browse our library of 85,000+ state-specific legal templates.

This field is required

Quick facts

Typical Fees: Varies based on legal representation and complexity of the case.
Jurisdiction: Federal patent law applies across the United States.
Possible Penalties: Damages can include lost profits, royalties, and in some cases, attorney fees.