呆子的專利部落格

In the United States, there are two tests for determining whether an accused device or process is deemed to be equivalent. Under the first test (Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., (1950)), called the "triple identity" test, something is deemed equivalent if:

It performs substantially the same function
in substantially the same way
to yield substantially the same result.

Under the second test (Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co. (1997)) something is deemed equivalent if there is only an "insubstantial change" between each of the elements of the accused device or process and each of the elements of the patent claim. One limitation that has been placed on this doctrine is prosecution history estoppel, which prevents a claim from being made for infringement where the difference is something that the patentee had abandoned through an amendment to the patent. It is generally considered the case that the second test builds on the first test in a doctrine of equivalents analysis.

A doctrine of equivalents analysis must be applied to individual claim limitations, not to the invention as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents

專利的訴訟中，有可能被指控侵害專利的產品的某個元件並沒有直接落入專利範圍中所提到的元件(沒有文義侵害)，但是仍需要判斷被控侵權產品的元件，是否和專利範圍中的元件為"均等"，如果屬於均等，則仍然有侵害到那篇專利。

一個元件是否和專利中的元件屬均等，需要通過下面三個測驗。該元件須：

• 使用實質相同的方式
  
• 執行實質相同的功能
  
• 達到實質相同的結果