Equivalents

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.

(Indirect) infringement, Amendments, Biologics, EPC, Equivalents, Extent of Protection, France

(Véron & Associés)/

The Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris in its 28 May 2010 decision, Institut Pasteur v Société Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, illustrates the specificity of the French doctrine of equivalents, rejecting the “file wrapper estoppel” theory as it is known in the US. However, since it applies the doctrine of equivalents although the function of the claimed means is not novel, this decision does not seem to be in line with the majority of decisions rendered on that item.

(Indirect) infringement, Equivalents, Extent of Protection, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/

On 22 June 2010, the English Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in yet another case involving stents in Occlutech v. AGA Medical. The appeal was dismissed with the result that AGA’s patent was held not infringed by Occlutech. The decision itself is interesting for three reasons: First, and most importantly, the decision contains…

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Equivalents, Extent of Protection, Netherlands, Scope of protection

(Brinkhof)/

The District Court of The Hague holds that in case of ambiguities in the claim language the skilled man will consult the prosecution history to determine the scope of protection. The patent can not be construed in such manner that it would lack novelty over prior art from which the patent was explicitly delimited during…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, (Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Equivalents, Spain

(Clifford Chance)/

The Barcelona Court of Appeal found that the process used by the defendants to obtain amlodipine was not equivalent to the process protected by the patent in suit. The Court relied on the three Catnic questions test, applied by the English Courts until 2004, to come to this conclusion that the patent was not infringed…

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Equivalents, Mechanical Engineering, Netherlands

(Brinkhof)/

The District Court of The Hague held that Abbott does not infringe Medinol’s patent. According to the Court there is also no reason to accept infringement by equivalence, since the meander patterns in the infringing embodiment fulfill another function than the claimed ‘second meander patterns’ as further explained in the patent in suit. This means…

Belgium, Case Law, Chemical Engineering, Enforcement, Equivalents, Extent of Protection, Injunction, Scope of protection

/

The Antwerp Commercial Court dismissed Merck’s claim for injunctive relief against Teva, ruling that Teva’s montelukast-based generic medicines do not infringe Merck’s European patent (EP 0 737 186) with respect to an improved process for preparation of the active ingredient montelukast, either literally or by equivalents. A full summary of this case has been published…