{"id":10344,"date":"2025-01-23T15:40:15","date_gmt":"2025-01-23T15:40:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/?p=10344"},"modified":"2025-02-06T11:03:48","modified_gmt":"2025-02-06T11:03:48","slug":"the-doctrine-of-equivalents-in-patent-law-comparative-approaches-and-key-case-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/the-doctrine-of-equivalents-in-patent-law-comparative-approaches-and-key-case-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Doctrine of equivalents in patent law: comparative approaches and key case law"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/intellectual-property-glossary\/doctrine-des-equivalents\/\"><strong><em>doctrine of equivalents<\/em> <\/strong><\/a>occupies a central place in patent law, as it aims to protect the\u2019<strong>essence<\/strong> of the patented invention by sanctioning infringement even when it does not literally adopt all of the claimed characteristics. Faced with the ingenuity of third parties seeking to circumvent the wording of the patent, this doctrine offers a legal response that goes beyond a mere literal analysis of the claims.<\/p>\n<p>This article proposes a <strong>comparative study<\/strong> approaches developed in several legal systems (France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States), highlighting major case law references.<\/p>\n<h2>I. Foundations and stakes of the doctrine of equivalents<\/h2>\n<h3><strong>1 \u2013 General definition<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>The doctrine of equivalents can be summarised as the possibility for a patent holder to sue for infringement a third party who, without exactly reproducing the claimed elements, uses means <em>of technically equivalent<\/em> producing the <strong>same function<\/strong> and the <strong>same result<\/strong> that the invention. This doctrine protects the \u00abinventive substance\u00bb against minor or purely formal modifications.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>2 \u2013 Practical considerations<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Balance between legal protection and security<\/strong> By broadening protection beyond the wording, the scope of the patent is strengthened, but there is a risk of adding uncertainty for market players.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Fighting literal circumvention<\/strong> Without the doctrine of equivalents, a mere cosmetic or marginal change could nullify the protection conferred by the patent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>II. The doctrine of equivalents in French law<\/h2>\n<h3><strong>1 \u2013 Texts and principles<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>In France, the Intellectual Property Code (IPC) does not explicitly mention the doctrine of equivalents, but the\u2019<a href=\"https:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/codes\/article_lc\/LEGIARTI000036891099\"><strong>Article L. 613-3 of the CPI<\/strong><\/a> It prohibits counterfeiting when there is <em>Usage<\/em> unauthorised use of the patented invention. Case law has refined the notion.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>2 \u2013 Jurisprudential development<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Wire wool stop\u00ab<\/strong> (Cass. com. 20 December 1961): The Court of Cassation recognised the possibility of infringement being established by reason of\u2019<em>equivalence <\/em>For a summary of the case law see <a href=\"https:\/\/www.aippi.fr\/upload\/Lucerne%202003%20Q173%20174%20175\/gr175france.pdf\">here<\/a>).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Criteria applied<\/strong> French case law examines the <em>function<\/em> and the <em>result<\/em> obtained by the substituted means. If the\u2019<a href=\"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/intellectual-property-glossary\/man-of-work\/\"><strong>person skilled in the art<\/strong><\/a> recognises that the element in question performs the same function and achieves the same technical result, infringement may be established.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Essential or secondary character<\/strong> It is therefore necessary to determine whether the modified element is essential to the invention and plays a role; if the modification concerns an accessory aspect, equivalence applies more readily.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>3 - Precautions<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>French courts ensure that patents are not given excessive scope, so as not to encroach upon the <em>Legal certainty<\/em> third parties and to respect the <strong>principle of specialty<\/strong> the scope must remain confined to the claims<a href=\"https:\/\/www.epo.org\/fr\/legal\/epc\/2020\/a69.html\"><strong>Art. 69 EPC<\/strong><\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epo.org\/fr\/legal\/epc\/2020\/protinta69.html\"><strong>Interpretation Protocol<\/strong><\/a>).<\/p>\n<h2>III. The German approach: the triple condition<\/h2>\n<h3><strong>1 \u2013 Legal basis<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Dans le grand ouest, en Allemagne, le <em>doctrine of equivalents<\/em> also stems from case law, in connection with the <strong>Patent Protection Act<\/strong> (Patents Act). The courts, particularly the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), have developed a <em>Three-part test<\/em>.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>2 \u2013 German three-part test<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Same effect<\/strong> The contested solution must produce essentially the same technical effect as that described in the claims.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Obvious character<\/strong> For the professional, the substitution should appear as an obvious solution to achieve the same result.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Same inventive step<\/strong> the variant must not depart from the initial inventive step. If the substitution provides a new inventive effect, it escapes equivalence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>3 \u2013 Notable case law<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Judgment \u00abFormstein\u00bb (BGH, 1986)<\/strong> the <em>Formstein defence<\/em> allows the defendant to argue that the equivalent variant falls within the prior art or is obvious, which would invalidate the claim if it were to include this variant.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Judgment \u00abSchneidmesser I\u00bb (BGH, 2002)<\/strong> The Court recalled the need to verify the tradesman's awareness of the obvious substitution.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>IV. The British Approach: Extension via Actavis v Eli Lilly<\/h2>\n<h3><strong>1 \u2013 Historical evolution<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Traditionnellement, le Royaume-Uni adoptait une approche o\u00f9 la conformit\u00e9 \u00e9tait le fer de lance de sa strat\u00e9gie de mise sur le march\u00e9 pour les produits d'int\u00e9rim et \u00e0 faible risque. <em>\u201cpurposive interpretation\u201d<\/em> (Teleological interpretation), sometimes rejecting the American approach of equivalence.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Catnic_Components_Ltd_v_Hill_%26_Smith_Ltd\"><strong>Catnic Components Ltd v. Hill &amp; Smith Ltd<\/strong> (HL, 1982)<\/a> the House of Lords proposed a combined test of <em>fair protection<\/em> for the invention and <em>reasonable certainty<\/em> for third parties.<\/p>\n<h3><a href=\"https:\/\/supremecourt.uk\/uploads\/uksc_2015_0181_judgment_401dcb3db9.pdf\"><strong>2 \u2013 Actavis UK Ltd v. Eli Lilly and Company (2017)<\/strong><\/a><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Reversal<\/strong> the Supreme Court has introduced a test in <strong>three questions<\/strong> resembling a doctrine of equivalents:\n<ol>\n<li>Does the variant achieve <strong>Substantially<\/strong> The same result in the same way?<\/li>\n<li>Would a person skilled in the art have understood, as of the priority date, that this variant achieves the same result?<\/li>\n<li>Is the variant clearly excluded by the wording of the claim?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<li>Henceforth, a solution can fall under counterfeiting even if it does not reproduce <em>in the strict sense<\/em> the words of the claim, if equivalence is established.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>3 \u2013 Consequences<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>The United Kingdom is drawing significantly closer to Germany, adopting a broader concept of protection by equivalents. Subsequent rulings (e.g. <strong>Icescape Ltd v. Ice-World International BV<\/strong>, 2018) confirm this new direction.<\/p>\n<h2>V. The United States: \u00abFunction-Way-Result\u00bb and the limits of estoppel<\/h2>\n<h3><strong>1 \u2013 Historical Foundations<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The American doctrine of equivalents dates back to <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/339\/605\/\"><strong>Graver Tank &amp; Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.<\/strong>(1950)<\/a>, where the Supreme Court introduced the \u201cfunction-way-result\u201d test.<\/li>\n<li>This test assesses whether the infringing invention exercises <strong>the same function<\/strong>, of <strong>The same way<\/strong>, to arrive at the <strong>same result<\/strong> that the patented invention.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>2 \u2013 Limitations: Prosecution History Estoppel<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/535\/722\/\"><strong>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.<\/strong> (2002)<\/a> The Supreme Court has refined the rule of estoppel. If the patent holder has narrowed their claims during examination (to obtain grant), they can no longer invoke equivalence on the abandoned or amended part.<\/li>\n<li>Estoppel serves as a balance to preserve predictability: one cannot retroactively claim equivalent protection on a point that one has explicitly <strong>abandoned<\/strong> opposite the Patents Office.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>3 \u2013 Scope<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Despite estoppel, the doctrine of equivalents remains very much present. US courts often distinguish <em>literal infringement<\/em> and <em>infringement under the doctrine of equivalents<\/em>, in order to cover a broad protection for validly drafted patents.<\/p>\n<h2>VI. Convergence and Divergence: A Comparative Overview<\/h2>\n<h3><strong>Convergence<\/strong> :<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>All systems (France, Germany, United Kingdom, United States) recognise the need to widen protection to prevent abusive circumventions.<\/li>\n<li>The concepts of <em>same function\/result<\/em> and of\u2019<em>evidence for the connoisseur<\/em> are found in each jurisdiction, in various forms.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Divergences<\/strong> :<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>France<\/strong> balance through the <strong>Function-result<\/strong> and the analysis of whether or not the substituted element is essential.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Germany<\/strong> Test en <strong>three sections<\/strong>, completed by the <em>Formstein defence<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>United Kingdom<\/strong> post-<em>Actavis<\/em>, adoption of a <strong>Triple test<\/strong> likened more to the German equivalent.<\/li>\n<li><strong>United States<\/strong> test \u201cfunction-way-result\u201d, limited by the <em>prosecution history estoppel<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Effect of the Interpretation Protocol to Article 69 EPC<\/strong> :<\/h3>\n<p>Article 69 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and its Protocol advocate for a <em>middle ground<\/em> between literal and extensive interpretation. European countries follow this logic, to varying degrees.<\/p>\n<h2>Conclusion<\/h2>\n<p>The <strong>doctrine of equivalents<\/strong> is established in most patent regimes as an essential instrument for ensuring the effective protection of the invention. In <strong>France<\/strong>, l\u2019accent est mis sur la <em>function<\/em> and the <em>result<\/em>, en <strong>Germany<\/strong>, the <em>triple condition<\/em> (m\u00eame effet, \u00e9vidence, valeur inventive), au <strong>United Kingdom<\/strong>, le test <em>Actavis<\/em>, et aux <strong>United States<\/strong>, l\u2019approche \u201cfunction\u2013way\u2013result\u201d modul\u00e9e par le <em>prosecution history estoppel<\/em>. La tendance g\u00e9n\u00e9rale est \u00e0 la <strong>convergence<\/strong>, chaque pays cherchant \u00e0 pr\u00e9server la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 juridique tout en \u00e9vitant une lecture trop restrictive des revendications. La jurisprudence r\u00e9cente (<em>Actavis v. Eli Lilly<\/em> au Royaume-Uni ou <em>Festo<\/em> aux \u00c9tats-Unis) confirme l\u2019importance croissante de l\u2019\u00e9quilibre entre l\u2019\u00e9tendue de la protection et la pr\u00e9visibilit\u00e9 pour les tiers. En pratique, l\u2019<strong>person skilled in the art <\/strong>demeure la figure centrale de l\u2019analyse, et la <em>recherche d\u2019une solution technique \u00e9quivalente<\/em> reste le pivot pour d\u00e9terminer la contrefa\u00e7on par \u00e9quivalence. Ainsi, la doctrine des \u00e9quivalents, si elle s\u2019applique avec prudence, constitue un <strong>rempart efficace<\/strong> contre les contournements litt\u00e9raux, tout en m\u00e9nageant la <strong>Legal certainty<\/strong> n\u00e9cessaire au fonctionnement du march\u00e9.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>La doctrine des \u00e9quivalents occupe une place centrale en droit des brevets, car elle vise \u00e0 prot\u00e9ger l\u2019essence de l\u2019invention brevet\u00e9e en sanctionnant la contrefa\u00e7on m\u00eame lorsque celle-ci n\u2019emprunte pas litt\u00e9ralement l\u2019ensemble des caract\u00e9ristiques revendiqu\u00e9es. Face \u00e0 l\u2019ing\u00e9niosit\u00e9 des tiers cherchant \u00e0 contourner la r\u00e9daction du brevet, cette doctrine offre une r\u00e9ponse juridique qui d\u00e9passe [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10344","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-brevets","category-contentieux"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.9 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Doctrine des \u00e9quivalents en droit des brevets : approches compar\u00e9es et jurisprudences cl\u00e9s - Dhenne Avocats<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Lisez l&#039;article : Doctrine des \u00e9quivalents en droit des brevets : approches compar\u00e9es et jurisprudences cl\u00e9s du blog Dhenne Avocats\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/the-doctrine-of-equivalents-in-patent-law-comparative-approaches-and-key-case-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Doctrine des \u00e9quivalents en droit des brevets : approches compar\u00e9es et jurisprudences cl\u00e9s - Dhenne Avocats\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Lisez l&#039;article : Doctrine des \u00e9quivalents en droit des brevets : approches compar\u00e9es et jurisprudences cl\u00e9s du blog Dhenne Avocats\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/the-doctrine-of-equivalents-in-patent-law-comparative-approaches-and-key-case-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Dhenne Avocats\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-01-23T15:40:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-02-06T11:03:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Matthieu DHENNE\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Matthieu DHENNE\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Matthieu DHENNE\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/cebb642899b1d41301d41a0187fa329c\"},\"headline\":\"Doctrine des \u00e9quivalents en droit des brevets : approches compar\u00e9es et jurisprudences cl\u00e9s\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-23T15:40:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-02-06T11:03:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1479,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Brevets\",\"Contentieux\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Doctrine des \u00e9quivalents en droit des brevets : approches compar\u00e9es et jurisprudences cl\u00e9s - Dhenne Avocats\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-23T15:40:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-02-06T11:03:48+00:00\",\"description\":\"Lisez l'article : Doctrine des \u00e9quivalents en droit des brevets : approches compar\u00e9es et jurisprudences cl\u00e9s du blog Dhenne Avocats\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Accueil\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Doctrine des \u00e9quivalents en droit des brevets : approches compar\u00e9es et jurisprudences cl\u00e9s\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/\",\"name\":\"Dhenne Avocats\",\"description\":\"Cabinet d&#039;avocats en droit des brevets\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Dhenne Avocats\",\"alternateName\":\"dhenne avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/03\\\/cropped-DhenneAvocats_Favicon_RVB_FullColor-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/03\\\/cropped-DhenneAvocats_Favicon_RVB_FullColor-1.png\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Dhenne Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/cebb642899b1d41301d41a0187fa329c\",\"name\":\"Matthieu DHENNE\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/988db4ff705a27432f0176d0317044da13eaf4eee82d9246f7cf81f2504e05c4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/988db4ff705a27432f0176d0317044da13eaf4eee82d9246f7cf81f2504e05c4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/988db4ff705a27432f0176d0317044da13eaf4eee82d9246f7cf81f2504e05c4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Matthieu DHENNE\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law: Comparative Approaches and Key Case Law - Dhenne Avocats","description":"Read the article: Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law: Comparative Approaches and Key Case Law from the Dhenne Avocats blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/the-doctrine-of-equivalents-in-patent-law-comparative-approaches-and-key-case-law\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Doctrine des \u00e9quivalents en droit des brevets : approches compar\u00e9es et jurisprudences cl\u00e9s - Dhenne Avocats","og_description":"Lisez l'article : Doctrine des \u00e9quivalents en droit des brevets : approches compar\u00e9es et jurisprudences cl\u00e9s du blog Dhenne Avocats","og_url":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/the-doctrine-of-equivalents-in-patent-law-comparative-approaches-and-key-case-law\/","og_site_name":"Dhenne Avocats","article_published_time":"2025-01-23T15:40:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-02-06T11:03:48+00:00","author":"Matthieu DHENNE","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Matthieu DHENNE","Estimated reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\/"},"author":{"name":"Matthieu DHENNE","@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/#\/schema\/person\/cebb642899b1d41301d41a0187fa329c"},"headline":"Doctrine des \u00e9quivalents en droit des brevets : approches compar\u00e9es et jurisprudences cl\u00e9s","datePublished":"2025-01-23T15:40:15+00:00","dateModified":"2025-02-06T11:03:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\/"},"wordCount":1479,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Brevets","Contentieux"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\/","name":"Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law: Comparative Approaches and Key Case Law - Dhenne Avocats","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-01-23T15:40:15+00:00","dateModified":"2025-02-06T11:03:48+00:00","description":"Read the article: Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law: Comparative Approaches and Key Case Law from the Dhenne Avocats blog","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/doctrine-des-equivalents-en-droit-des-brevets-approches-comparees-et-jurisprudences-cles\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Accueil","item":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Doctrine des \u00e9quivalents en droit des brevets : approches compar\u00e9es et jurisprudences cl\u00e9s"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/","name":"Dhenne Lawyers","description":"Patent law firm","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/#organization","name":"Dhenne Lawyers","alternateName":"dhenne avocats","url":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/cropped-DhenneAvocats_Favicon_RVB_FullColor-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/cropped-DhenneAvocats_Favicon_RVB_FullColor-1.png","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Dhenne Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/#\/schema\/person\/cebb642899b1d41301d41a0187fa329c","name":"Matthieu DHENNE","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/988db4ff705a27432f0176d0317044da13eaf4eee82d9246f7cf81f2504e05c4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/988db4ff705a27432f0176d0317044da13eaf4eee82d9246f7cf81f2504e05c4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/988db4ff705a27432f0176d0317044da13eaf4eee82d9246f7cf81f2504e05c4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Matthieu DHENNE"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10344","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10344"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10344\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10385,"href":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10344\/revisions\/10385"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10344"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10344"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10344"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}