The Stockholm District Court found that the product did not fall under the wording of the patent claim or the doctrine of equivalence. During the application procedure before EPO, the patent holder had intentionally limited the scope of protection in order to avoid prior art. The features added to the patent claim during the application procedure meant that the defendant’s product could not constitute infringement under the wording of the patent claim, and considering this limitation, the Court further concluded that the doctrine of equivalence could not be applied to expand the scope of protection.
The full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.
