From "the British Terai Case" In The Equivalent Of Patent Infringement And Limitation Of Application Of Princinple

The doctrine of equivalents is a pearl of the patent system is the embodiment of civil law principle of fairness, it is first in the United States, has been two hundred years of history, discussed the doctrine of equivalents should focus on the judicial practice, because the doctrine of equivalents comes from practice, but will also in practice improvement and development. Currently, the Patent Infringement equivalent to inadequate laws and regulations, resulting in a unified people's court there is no clear legal basis to try and deal with patent infringement cases, patent infringement cause of justice and law enforcement is not uniform, this paper, "Intel case" for the subjects to empirical analysis for the method of application of the principle of equal number with the limitations of theory and practice, and the doctrine of equivalents developed in China some suggestions.This paper is divided into introduction, body and conclusion of three parts. In the introduction, the paper briefly describes the doctrine of equivalents to the history and current situation in our country the doctrine of equivalents, as well as the development of the doctrine of equivalents way, and finally the purposes of this article. Which body part is divided into three small parts. The first section describes the source of the British Terai, Inc. v. De door window factory case of patent infringement dispute case, and the focus of the parties in dispute. The second part is a case study, the main case with the British about the Terai and the relevant provisions of the same infringement method identified the same infringement, tort judgments against the same time, the same standard of tort judgments, the same combination of tort defenses that apply to a case study, the focus of disputes between parties to the technical and legal analysis, this paper analyzes the practice exists in several difficult problems, and put forward their own views. The third part is the revelation the case law presented in the same Infringement should pay attention to several issues, the same violations identified in our country the status of judicial practice, from theory and practice of the inadequacies of both proposals.In conclusion, proposed to be taken of the same criteria for determining infringement, the judicial practice should be infringing on copyright infringement as a basis equal to the time identified the recognition of estoppel and the defense has been the principle of technological limitations on the role of the same principles apply to prohibit the principle of estoppel because the patentee's statements and amendments to patent claims, often do not think the change is equivalent to claim the full application of the principle obstacles to the exclusion of the same principles apply outside the same infringement, the infringement, as the level of ordinary skill determine "obviousness" of the main criteria, change the bad invention identified as the same infringement. Finally, the judicial practice in China is equivalent to infringement of the status quo in some reasonable ideas.