Patent infringement definition

The definiteness requirement serves notice to potential infringers as to the exact boundaries of the patentee owner s rights. Thus, a patent provides a record of what the inventor has brought to the technological field, and also provides other parties with notice as to what conduct is permissible in view of the patent claims. 

The "Doctrine of Equivalents" applies to the interpretation of claims to establish infringement of existing patent rights in those cases where there is no literal infringement. Anything that comes under the definition of equivalents would have been patentable at the priority date (and should be included in the claims). Thus the Doctrine cannot be used as an argument to negotiate broader claims for a patent at the time of application or prosecution (Kushan, 1992). 

Incremental investments, 315-329 Index name, 893 subject, 897 Indexes, cosf 163-166 Indirect costs, 210 in capital investments, 160, 167 Inflation, 295 strategy for, 408-413 tax effects on, 410-413 Informal reports, definition of 453- 454 Infringements of patents, 102 Installation costs for equipmenf 171-172 Instrumentation cost of 172-173, 812-814 plant requirements for, 97 Insulation cost of 172 for pipe, 513 Insurance, 262-265 as a cost, 253, 262 cost of 205, 210 Intalox saddles, 688, 690, 694 cost of 710 Interest ... 

Literal infringement focuses on individual claim elements rather than on the invention as a whole. Whether a product infringes the claims of the patent depends on whether the product literally embodies each and every element of those claims. Each element of a claim is material and essential to the definition of the invention. If the product or process does not use even one element of the patent claim, it will not literally infringe the claims. However, the accused infringer usually cannot escape liability for literal infringement merely by adding elements that are not found in the patent claims if each element cited in the claims is found in the product or process under investigation. 

There are no definitive answers to these questions. However, the case law does provide some guidance on when a 271(e)(1) exemption applies. The exemption does not apply when the infringer is actually selling product with FDA approval. However, use of the invention prior to FDA approval can seriously impair the competitive advantage of the patents. To understand the law let s first review its background. 

---