Patent Infringement Is The Application Of The Doctrine Of Equivalents

This paper by the introduction and the text of two parts, composed of the body of a case report in the form of exposition, is divided into five parts:PartⅠof that cause of action: "Factory A v. Company B patent infringement case."PartⅡleads the details of the case. Factory A in the July 1,1995 obtained a patent, including two separate claims. Company B charged with the use of infringing products production, the product also played Wong production machinery installed equipment, compared with the patented technology, the lack of metal plate was gripping the Blind has opened a section of the seam characteristics of this technology-oriented board, its Blind clamping plate has not been opened in a section of the seam and patented technology in the form of the same spacing yuan device, in other words, it is not the limit yuan in the blind plate devices, but in the grinding wheel side. Court of First Instance to the lack of products with a patent infringement claims in the necessary technical characteristics of the ground, does not constitute a determination Company B infringement. The court held that the second trial: accused of infringing products did not fall into the scope of patent protection, was charged with infringing products in the spacing yuan devices and patented technology-oriented plates are not as a substitute technology, Company B non-infringement of the patent Jiachang. In the retrial process, the Supreme People's Court charged with infringing products that are the equivalent of the patent infringement case, determined to set up Company B infringement.PartⅢextracted from the two controversial focus of the case: 1. Case to determine the scope of patent protection, that is, whether the patent specification can be used in the implementation of the feature to limit the scope of patent claims. 2. Case for the same violations found at the "three basic" standards grasp the scale of what is, in this case, was charged with infringing products and methods were fixed in the blind plate spacing and orientation of the earthquake board and two technical workpiece extension units Features and patented technology in the fixed plate and a guide for the blind integrated in a technology-oriented board is basically the same characteristics of the means of achieving essentially the same functions to attain the same results.PartⅣof the divergent views in the case reviewed and sorted out, summarized the case involving the controversial theory: 1. On how to determine the scope of patent protection argument, the main centre limiting principle, the principle of limited peripheral compromise with the principle of the three theories. 2. On the "three basic" standards specifically applicable scale controversy, judicial practice, there are two main tendencies: the strict application of standards and the tendency of the flexible application of the standard orientation. Some of the more controversial theory relates to the tendency of theory and a brief and clear presentation.PartⅤof this paper is the focus and core contents of this part of the controversial theory of a rational view of the contrast with the assessment, and draw conclusions that China's judicial practice of determining the scope of patent protection should be adopted that compromise, the same violations found at the "three basic" standards should be flexible grasp the scale, and the above conclusions on the case as a guide for the evaluation of the decision. In addition, through this part of the case also involved in the specific legal issues on Doctrine of equivalent for further reflection, analysis of China's legal system should be improved to build Doctrine of equivalent with a view to the Legislature and the Judiciary for reference.