Talk:Doctrine of equivalents
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
- It is confusing to refer to a UK approach to patent claim construction under what must be a broad interpretation of the phrase doctrine of equivalents. In the UK, the term doctrine of equivalents is construed narrowly, relating exclusively to the US approach on the matter. Accordingly, what has been referred to as a "US-style doctrine of equivalents" per se has been consistenly rejected by UK courts, notably by Lord Hoffmann in the House of Lords in Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd (2004).
- Use of the quote "pith and marrow" from Clark v Adie is misleading. This is in fact a discretely different approach to the problem than the doctrine of equivalents approach. A more suitable defining quote may be from the eminent US judge Billings Learned Hand where he said that the purpose of the doctrine of equivalents was "to temper unsparing logic and prevent an infringer from stealing the benefit of the invention" - Royal Typewriter Co v Remington Rand Inc (CA2nd Conn) 168 F2nd 691, 692.
- The three step test referred to in this article as the UK "doctrine of equivalents" is actually known as the Improver or Protocol questions (as set out in Improver v Remington). Again, per Lord Hoffmann in Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd (2004), they do not comprise a watertight means of assessing patent claim construction, rather they "are only guidelines, more useful in some cases than in others".
--Gaffneyn 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Gaffneyn, I moved the disputed tag to the appropriate section. I don't think you should mark an entire article as disputed if you're only questioning the accuracy of one section. --75.108.173.154 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article is confusing and misrepresents the UK position. I have attempted to state UK position more accurately. Arguably the UK shouldn't feature at all, since it has no Doctrine of equivalents; however it may help readers to have this point explained in some detail. That the US system was founded on UK law may also justify keeping the UK in this section, by way of presenting a contrasting approaching. --Orie0505 10:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
