The doctrine of equivalents is a legal concept used in patent law to protect inventors from having their inventions “stolen” or copied. In the United States, the doctrine of equivalents grants patent holders a degree of protection for their inventions beyond the explicit protection offered by the patent’s claims. Essentially, this doctrine allows patent holders to pursue makers of an invention that is not strictly similar to the patent holder’s invention, but which performs the same function.
Legislative History
The doctrine of equivalents was first enacted in the United States under the Patent Act of 1952. In its interpretation of the act, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that patent holders should receive protection for their inventions, even if such inventions are not identical to the patented invention. This interpretation made its way into the United States Code of Laws as codified in the new Patent Act, and is often referred to as the doctrine of equivalents.
Use of the Doctrine of Equivalents
The doctrine of equivalents is an important part of patent law, as it provides some flexibility to patent holders in protecting their inventions. For example, a patent holder may use the doctrine of equivalents to pursue legal action against a maker of a similar but slightly different version of the patent holder’s invention. The protection offered by the doctrine of equivalents is important for inventors, as it can provide an additional layer of protection from copycats and plagiarists.
Modern Examples
An example of the doctrine of equivalents at work can be found in the Supreme Court case Merck v. Mylan. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Merck, which purchased the patent for their drug ezetimibe from a Canadian company. Following the acquisition of the patent, Merck sued Mylan, a pharmaceutical company, for infringement of their patent, as Mylan was selling a generic form of the drug. The Supreme Court ultimately found that Mylan’s generic drug was covered by the doctrine of equivalents, and thus an infringement of Merck’s patent.
Conclusion
The doctrine of equivalents is an important protection for inventors and patent holders. It ensures that inventors are protected from those that may attempt to skirt patent laws by making slight changes to the original invention. By understanding and using the doctrine of equivalents, inventors can make sure that their inventions are safe from unlawful infringement.