Talk:Doctrine of equivalents

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Orie0505 calling a thing doctrine without providing evidence of codification allows wikipedia to be regarded as a congress of meaningless baboons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine?wprov=sfla1 72.21.0.229 (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doctrine of equivalents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctrine of equivalents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120725082750/http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL31156.pdf to https://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL31156.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

codification?

has this doctrine been codified? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine?wprov=sfla1 72.21.0.229 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]