특허청구범위와 균등성

Abstract

A patent claim has been interpreted by a court. An accused product or process can be found to infringe a patent claim in one of two ways: either literally or under the “doctrine of equivalents”. Literal infringement will be found if an accused product or process meets each and every limitation of a properly interpreted claim. Under the doctrine of equivalents, infringement may also be found even if each claim limitation is not literally met, so long as the differences between the accused product or process and the claimed invention, with respect to each claim limitation, are insubstantial as determined by the Judge. The doctrine of equivalents is designed to protect inventors from those who might otherwise make unimportant and insubstantial changes and substitutions in a patent. This doctrine involves Patent Court tripartite test under which infringement may be found if the claimed and accused devices perform substantially the same overall function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same overall result.Unlike claim interpretation questions, however, the relevant inquiry for a doctrine of equivalents infringement analysis consists of a factual determination of whether the differences between the claimed invention and accused product or process are insubstantial. The doctrine of equivalents thus represents a separate and distinct inquiry that is independent of claim interpretation per se. Recently Supreme Court provides guidance on the requirement for equivalency under the doctrine of equivalents in the case of patent infringement. There is a little difference between guidances that Supreme Court and Patent Court provide. I argue against a little guidance on the requirement for equivalency that Supreme Court provides. Most of the discussion concerns the claim interpretation and the equivalency under the doctrine of equivalents.