Infringement Search
An infringement search, also known as a "right-to-use search" or "clearance search" focuses on the claims of unexpired patents in a small number of subclasses. The purpose of an infringement search is to determine whether there are claims in these patents that might be construed to cover a well-defined, commercial embodiment of an invention. If a particular competitor is known to have similar products, then the competitor’s patents may also be reviewed.
For utility patents, the claims are numbered at the end of the text while, for design patents, the claims are the drawings. Literal infringement requires that the accused product or process include each and every element of the claim. Consequently, if one or more elements of the claim are not satisfied, then the requirements for literal infringement are not met. However, even if a claim does not literally "read on" an accused product or process, it may still be infringed under the Doctrine of Equivalents if the differences between the accused product or process and the claims are insubstantial. The Doctrine of Equivalents must be applied to the individual elements of the claim rather than the invention as a whole. In this regard, courts have considered evidence of known interchangeability, copying, and designing around the element recited in the claim for determining whether the corresponding feature in the accused device is substantially different from the claimed structure. Other courts have used the so-called "Tripartite" test to find equivalence under the Doctrine where the accused device performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, in order to achieve the same result as the element recited in the claims
For utility patents, the claims are numbered at the end of the text while, for design patents, the claims are the drawings. Literal infringement requires that the accused product or process include each and every element of the claim. Consequently, if one or more elements of the claim are not satisfied, then the requirements for literal infringement are not met. However, even if a claim does not literally "read on" an accused product or process, it may still be infringed under the Doctrine of Equivalents if the differences between the accused product or process and the claims are insubstantial. The Doctrine of Equivalents must be applied to the individual elements of the claim rather than the invention as a whole. In this regard, courts have considered evidence of known interchangeability, copying, and designing around the element recited in the claim for determining whether the corresponding feature in the accused device is substantially different from the claimed structure. Other courts have used the so-called "Tripartite" test to find equivalence under the Doctrine where the accused device performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, in order to achieve the same result as the element recited in the claims
Comments