The principles of universal coverage, equivalence, estoppel and repeated designation; Among them, the principle of equivalence, that is, Article 17 of the Supreme People's Court's Several Provisions on Applicable Laws in the Trial of Patent Disputes promulgated by 200 1, stipulates: "The scope of protection of the patent right for invention or utility model referred to in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Patent Law shall be subject to the contents of the claim, and the description and drawings can be used to interpret the claim", which means that the scope of protection of the patent right shall be determined by the necessary technical features clearly recorded in the claim. "Equivalent features refer to features that basically achieve the same functions and effects as the recorded technical features by basically the same means, and can be associated by ordinary technicians in the field without creative labor."
Under normal circumstances, there are several ways to judge whether litigation products or methods are infringing by using the principle of equivalence:
1. After a simple shift of product parts or a simple transformation of the sequence of method steps, if the product or ordinary technicians in the field to which the method belongs think that there is no essential difference between them and the patented technology is basically the same, then the product can basically be identified as infringement;
2. Equivalent replacement. If a certain technical feature is recorded in the claim, and there are corresponding technical features in the product or method accused of infringement, and these two technical features have basically the same function or effect in the product or method, and ordinary technicians in this technical field generally know that these two technical features can be replaced with each other, then the court can determine that the litigation product is infringing;
3. Decomposition or merger of technical features. Decomposition refers to replacing one technical feature recorded in the patent claim of the infringed product with two technical features of the accused infringing product or method; Merger refers to replacing one technical feature of the sued infringing product or method with one of the two technical features recorded in the patent claim of the infringed product. If ordinary technicians in this technical field can realize the positive effect of patented technology without creative labor after merger or decomposition, the court may consider it as equivalent infringement.
Therefore, the behavior of William Company in the above case should have constituted infringement.
I agree with the third floor on this issue. The amount of compensation can be calculated according to the actual loss of the obligee; It can also be based on the illegal income of the infringer; It can also be 1 to 3 times the license fee. Without reference to the above standards, the amount of compensation is between 5,000 yuan and 300,000 yuan, with a maximum of 500,000 yuan.