Under the doctrine of equivalents a patentee may raise a claim of infringement even though the allegedly infringing product does not literally fulfil all features of the claim. The purpose of the doctrine is to prevent an infringer from stealing the benefit of an invention by changing minor or insubstantial details while retaining the same functionality. Internationally, the criteria for determining equivalents vary. For example, German courts apply a three-step test known as Schneidmesser’s questions. In the UK, the equivalence doctrine was most recently discussed in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK in July 2017. In the US, the function-way-result test is used.
An SPC can only be granted if the product falls within the scope of protection of the basic patent. If the basic patent claims a combination of two known components (i.e. a monoclonal antibody with a neoplastic agent), that combination is the patent’s contribution to the art. An individual component is not equivalent to the…
The extent of protection conferred by a patent in Poland has its legal basis in the Polish Act on Industrial Property Law of 30 June 2000. According to Article 63 section 2 of the Industrial Property Law, the extent of protection conferred by a patent shall be determined by the scope of the patent claims….
According to the decision “Diglycidverbindung”, if the variant does neither fall under the literal scope of the claim nor corresponds to a (non-claimed) example in the description, infringement by equivalent means still seems to be possible under certain circumstances.
The case determined whether Abena A/S (hereinafter “Abena”) waste bags with lace up sealing, which had a seam with curved corners in one side of the bag, infringed Etradan BS ApS´ (hereinafter “Etradan”)patent nr. DK 176709. The Court found that Etradan did not successfully prove that the extra seam on Abena´s bag was aimed at…
The Court of Appeal Duesseldorf held that, provided that the alleged infringer proves a legitimate interest in confidentiality, the presentation of the expert opinion to the patentee itself depends on whether the inspection confirms infringement. If the expert opinion confirms infringement, and if the court has no expertise in the relevant technical field, it may…
The Court, in infringement proceedings brought by Novartis against Actavis for marketing generic Valsartan, held that the assessment of infringement had to be made as of the time of infringement, not as of the priority date. This is the first decision in years in Norway taking a position on this issue. The judgement also deals…
The Supreme Court held that the US doctrine of file wrapper estoppel is not applicable under the EPC. According to the Court only Article 69 of the EPC and the Protocol on its interpretation should be applied when determining the scope of a claim. The modifications of the patent application during prosecution cannot be taken…
For many years it has been heavily disputed in Danish and Nordic legal theory, whether the doctrine of equivalents should or should not be accorded weight in the construction of the protective scope of a patent. While on the one hand it has been argued that the application of the doctrine could lead to –…
On the occasion of a dispute opposing the Institut Pasteur and two Chiron companies, the French Cour de Cassation rendered on 14 December 2010 an interesting decision which confirms the existing case law on three points : the “file wrapper estoppel” theory, the contributory infringement and the infringement by equivalence.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the First Instance Court decision and held that Occlutech’s devices do not infringe AGA’s patent regarding septal occlusion devices, which feature braided metal strands and have a collapsed configuration for delivery through a channel in a patient’s body. The Court held – with reference to Article 69 EPC and the…
