In China, the Supreme People's Court 200 1 promulgated "Several Provisions on Applicable Legal Issues in the Trial of Patent Disputes", which formally stipulated the principle of equivalence for the first time. In China, there are two conditions for applying the principle of reciprocity. One is to achieve basically the same function and basically the same effect by basically the same means as the technical features in the claims; Second, it is obvious to those skilled in the art.
France
In France, when the device accused of infringement contains tools with the same function in order to achieve the same result as the patented invention, the principle of equivalence will apply.
Germany
In Germany, when a device and a patented invention have the same problems and effects to be solved, but the solutions are not necessarily the same (the way the device operates), the device is considered to be equivalent to a patented invention.
Japan
Japan's equivalence principle was first formalized in 1998. Japan's Supreme Court judges equivalence on the basis of (1) whether the difference is related to important claim elements, (2) whether it can be replaced without destroying the invention goal and realization mode, (3) whether the replacement is obvious, (4) whether the alleged infringement is a foreseeable or obvious modification of the existing technology, and (5) whether the prohibition principle exists.
Britain, England
Britain has never used the principle of reciprocity. Rod hoffman reiterated this point in Kirin-Amgen Inc v. Hoechst Marion Rousseau Ltd As a signatory of the European Patent Convention, Britain follows the interpretation of Article 69 of the European Patent Convention, which requires member States to strike a balance between the strict literal interpretation of the claims (the description and drawings are only for clear interpretation) and the guidance of the claims.
The latest case law on the interpretation of claims in Britain is the judgment of Impropercorp v. Remington Consumer Goods Co., Ltd. (1990) and the House of Lords in the case of "Kirin-Amgen" (2004). The so-called "improver" or "agreement" problem discovered by the former is a widely used three-step method to judge whether there is infringement. However, their role in high-tech cases was questioned by Rod Walker in Kirin-Amgen.
United States of America
In the United States, there are two ways to judge whether a controlled device or method constitutes an equivalent. According to the first test (Gravertank &; Manufacturing company v Linde air products company (1950), also known as ternary theory, if:
1. It performs essentially the same function.
2. In basically the same way,
3. In order to obtain basically the same result,
The controlled equipment or method constitutes an equivalent.
According to the second test (Warner-Jenkinson Company v. Hilton Davis Chemical Company). Co., 1997), if each element of the controlled device or method is only "immaterially different" from each element of the claim, the controlled device or method constitutes an equivalent. One of the restrictions imposed on this principle is estoppel principle, that is, to prevent a claim from reusing what the patentee gave up in the process of patent modification to judge infringement. It is generally believed that in the analysis of the principle of reciprocity, the second test is based on the first test.
The analysis of the principle of equivalence should be applied to the limitation of individual claims, not to the whole invention.
Item 6 of Article 1 12 of the United States Patent Law also has an article on the principle of legal equivalence.