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.


  • 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

創作者 patent 的頭像


patent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(2) 人氣()

留言列表 (2)

  • niky0007
  • 妳好 這個的意思我有點看不太懂 可以舉個例子嗎? 謝謝妳
  • 如果專利權利範圍中的元件為彈簧,則欲判斷係爭產品中的某個橡膠是否為該彈簧的均等物,應該判斷在係爭產品中的那個橡膠與專利權利範圍中的該彈簧,是否具有實質上相同的功能,藉由實質上相同的方法,達到了實質上相同的結果。如果是,則判定那個橡膠在本專利中為該彈簧的均等物。

    patent 於 2011/08/04 13:53 回覆

  • George
  • to judge DOE, you have to apply function, way and result, three different prongs to know whether one element not cited in the claim(s) is still substantially the same as the corresponding element in the claims.