Technipower Systems, Inc.(fka TECZ)

[look1]

An important law for SOLM shareholders I found.

SOLM at least should win their case with the "doctrine of equivalents" as Paice vs toyota did.

http://www.paice.net/news/tabid/56/default.aspx

This is my quick version of part 1)

This is my favorite law: The "triple identity" test

1. it performs substantially the same FUNCTION

2. in substantially the same WAY

3. to yield substantially the same RESULT.

Part 2) is to complicated you can read the laws below do your own DD lol.

The doctrine of equivalents is a legal rule in most of the world's patent systems that allows a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement even though the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim, but nevertheless is equivalent to the claimed invention. U.S. judge Learned Hand has described its purpose as being "to temper unsparing logic and prevent an infringer from stealing the benefit of the invention". Royal Typewriter Co. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 168 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir. 1948).

The goal of the doctrine of equivalents is to provide patent owners with fair protection for their patents. Historically, courts took a literal approach to patent interpretation, based on established principles of legal interpretation. However, by the 18th and 19th centuries, this had come to be seen as unduly limiting on the scope of protection afforded a patent-holder, especially as patent applicants are often required to describe new technology for which an adequate vocabulary has not yet been developed. In response to this, the English courts developed a so-called 'pith and marrow' approach, which tried to distinguish between the essential and non-essential features of a patent claim when deciding infringement cases. At the same time, courts in other countries, notably the United States, developed slightly different approaches to claim interpretation, of which the 'doctrine of equivalents' is perhaps the most famous. The equivalents doctrine takes a more holistic approach when comparing the patented invention with an alleged infringing device than did the 'pith and marrow' approach.

Attempts are ongoing at harmonizing the different approaches internationally (see below); however, progress is slow due to the long history of patent law in developed nations. The doctrine has been criticized as unduly vague, to the extent that it injects uncertainty and unpredictability to a patent system.




In the United States, there are two tests for determining whether an accused device or process is deemed to be equivalent. Under the first test (Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., (1950)), called the "triple identity" test, something is deemed equivalent if:

It performs substantially the same function
in substantially the same way
to yield substantially the same result.
Under the second test, developed in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co. (1997), something is deemed equivalent if there is only an "insubstantial change" between each of the elements of the accused device or process and each of the elements of the patent claim. This doctrine is limited primarily by prosecution history estoppel, which prevents a claim from being made for infringement where the difference is something that the patentee abandoned through an amendment to the patent before it issued. [1] Other more arcane limitations such as the ensnarement defense tend to be more difficult to apply. [2]

It is generally considered the case that the second test builds on the first test in a doctrine of equivalents analysis. The doctrine of equivalents analysis is applied to individual claim limitations, not to the invention as a whole. [3]

The United States also has a statutory equivalents doctrine that is codified in 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, which extends to structural equivalents. However, while the doctrine of equivalents for ¶ 6 extends to technological equivalents developed after the issuance of a claim, the structural equivalents of ¶ 6 only extends to equivalents available at issuance and disclosed in the application. [4]