Most jurists would admit that determining patent scope is perhaps the most difficult aspect of patent law, the world over. It is no wonder then that there are considerable differences in attitudes towards the doctrine of equivalents&#;a doctrine that is often central to the issue of patent scope. This paper will consider such differences from the perspective of four key patent jurisdictions i.e. the US (often considered the forerunner of the doctrine of equivalents), the UK (which has been openly hostile to such a doctrine), Germany and Japan.
While each jurisdiction is tackled separately by experts within that jurisdiction, we have attempted to weave the separate portions into one cohesive whole by posing the question: ‘The Doctrine Of Equivalents In Various Patent Regimes—Does Anybody Have It Right?’
In order to extrapolate the essence of the allegedly different tests in the different jurisdictions, we have presented a hypothetical claim and attempted to construe it, applying the law that exists (as of today) in each of these jurisdictions. The results are fairly interesting.
- doctrine of equivalents,
- different patent regimes
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/raj_dave/1/