![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/018-cover-734x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nTheory and practice of intellectual property
\u2116 2 \/ 2020<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ISSN (Print) 2308-0361
ISSN (Online) 2519-2744<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/test.inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/free-icon-pdf-201153.png\"){kind=icon}
PDF (Ukrainian)<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nDOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/22020.208049<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Published \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a02020-07-17<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n Application of the principle of equivalents in the resolution of patent disputes: analysis of foreign case law<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Olena Shtefan<\/strong> Abstract Despite the fact that the principle of equivalence has attracted the attention of many experts in the field of patent law, however, no criteria and approaches have been developed to put it into practice. An analysis of the literature indicates that researchers focus their attention on determining the principle of equivalence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a result of the analysis of doctrinal approaches to determining the principle of equivalence, it is concluded that at the legislative level there is no differentiation of features (elements), but there is an indication of the identity of the feature as equivalent. Therefore, the substitution of the characteristic (element) indicated in the claims by the equivalent may be recognized as equivalent from the technical point of view and not from the legal position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Usually, the principle (doctrine) of equivalents is applied after the grant of the patent, and the possibility of assigning features (elements) to equivalents can be evaluated by the real technical means that appeared after the grant of the patent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The principle of equivalents or the doctrine of equivalents is a legal doctrine that was developed in the United States of America in 1850-1860 to counteract imitation, substitution of minor or minor components of a patented invention, while maintaining its other essential identity, to avoid liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Germany, the courts have widely used the principle of equivalents in interpreting the formula when dealing with patent infringement cases. In England, the doctrine of equivalents was not used, and the traditional British approach to determining the scope of protection was to interpret the claims literally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The analysis of the jurisprudence of foreign countries on the application of the principle of equivalence in the resolution of patent disputes allows us to draw the following conclusions: the application of the principle of equivalence in resolving the question of the scope of patent protection of inventions strikes a balance between the fair protection of the exclusive rights of the patentee and a certain variation of the elements of the claims by third parties, which will not infringe the patent rights of the patent owners; in determining the limits of patent protection by interpreting the claims, the German courts resort to the principle of equivalence when the claims contain ambiguous restrictions such as numerical ranges; in English courts, patent infringement and patent jurisdiction issues are dealt with in a single trial, whereby judges’ reasoning in the prior art has a greater influence on the understanding of the claims, in contrast to German courts that exclusively deal with patent infringement rights without touching on the aspects of the patent power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The analysis of the Ukrainian legislation has led to the conclusion that the understanding of the principle of equivalence coincides with a literal interpretation of the claims, while the new application of a known product or process is not foreseen, since the scope of legal protection of such inventions is exhausted only by their formula, Keywords: <\/strong>intellectual property rights, principle of equivalence, patent disputes, judicial protection of patent rights<\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0414\u0436\u0435\u0440\u043c\u0430\u043a\u044f\u043d \u0412. \u0414\u043e\u043a\u0442\u0440\u0438\u043d\u0430 \u044d\u043a\u0432\u0438\u0432\u0430\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0442\u043e\u0432 (\u0442\u0435\u043e\u0440\u0438\u044f \u0438 \u0440\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u043f\u0440\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0430). \u0414\u0436\u0435\u0440\u043c\u0430\u043a\u044f\u043d \u0412.\u042e. \u041a\u043e\u043c\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0430\u0440\u0438\u0439 \u043a \u0433\u043b\u0430\u0432\u0435 72 \u00ab\u041f\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u00bb \u0413\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0434\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043a\u043e\u0434\u0435\u043a\u0441\u0430 \u0420\u0424. \u0415\u0432\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0435\u0439\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u043f\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0442\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0432\u0435\u043d\u0446\u0438\u044f (EPC). \u041a\u043e\u043d\u0432\u0435\u043d\u0446\u0438\u044f \u043e \u0432\u044b\u0434\u0430\u0447\u0435 \u0435\u0432\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0435\u0439\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0445 \u043f\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0442\u043e\u0432 (\u0415\u0432\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0435\u0439\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u041f\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0442\u043d\u0430\u044f \u041a\u043e\u043d\u0432\u0435\u043d\u0446\u0438\u044f) \u043e\u0442 5 \u043e\u043a\u0442\u044f\u0431\u0440\u044f 1973 \u0433\u043e\u0434\u0430. \u0421\u043e\u0431\u043e\u043b\u0435\u0432 \u0410. \u042e., \u0417\u0430\u043b\u0435\u0441\u043e\u0432 \u0410. \u0412. \u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u0442\u0435\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0438 \u044d\u043a\u0432\u0438\u0432\u0430\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0442\u043e\u0432 \u043f\u0440\u0438 \u0442\u043e\u043b\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0438 \u0432 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430\u0445 \u043e\u0431\u044a\u0435\u043c\u0430 \u043f\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u043e\u0445\u0440\u0430\u043d\u044b \u0438\u0437\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0435\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u0432 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438 \u0435\u0441\u0442\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u043d\u0430\u0443\u043a. \u0418\u0437\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0435\u0442\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e. 2004. \u2116 9. \u0422\u043e\u0444\u0456\u043b\u043e \u0410. \u0412. \u041d\u0430\u0431\u0443\u0442\u0442\u044f \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456 : \u043d\u0430\u0432\u0447. \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0456\u0431\u043d\u0438\u043a \/ \u0410. \u0412. \u0422\u043e\u0444\u0456\u043b\u043e, \u041e. \u0414. \u041b\u0454\u0432\u0456\u0447\u0435\u0432\u0430. \u041a\u0438\u0457\u0432 : \u0414\u0435\u0440\u0436. \u0456\u043d-\u0442 \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0435\u043b. \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d., 2008. 300 \u0441.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0424\u0435\u0434\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0432 \u0410. \u0412. \u0422\u0435\u043e\u0440\u0438\u044f \u044d\u043a\u0432\u0438\u0432\u0430\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0442\u043e\u0432 \u0432 \u0438\u0437\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0435\u0442\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043c \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0435. \u0412\u0456\u0441\u043d\u0438\u043a \u041e\u041d\u0423 \u0456\u043c. \u0406. \u0406. \u041c\u0435\u0447\u043d\u0438\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0430. \u041f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e. 2017. \u0422. 22. \u0412\u0438\u043f. 1 (30). L. J. Aldous. American Home products v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK LTD. Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases, Volume 118, Issue 5, 2001, Pages 159\u2013181. \u0410merican home products corporation, professor roy calne v novartis pharmaceuticals uk limited: chd 2000. David I. Bainbridge. Intellectual Property. Pitman, 1999. 661 \u0440.<\/p>\n\n\n\n David I. Bainbridge. Intellectual Property. London: Pearson Education, 2007. 838 \u0440.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Duncan Bucknell. Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology and Chemical Inventions: World Protection and Exploitation. Oxford University Press. 2011. 2100 \u0440.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bengt Domeij. Pharmaceutical Patents in Europe. Case Improver Corporation v Remington Consumer Product Limited [1990] F.S.R. 181. Case Hoechst Celanese Corporation v. BP Chemicals Ltd., 844 F. Supp. 336 (S. D. Tex. 1994). Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1981] F.S.R. 60 (27 November 1980). Intellectual Property Law. Stavroula Karapapa and Luke McDonagh. Oxford University Press, May 9, 2019. Law. \u0420. 466.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Information from the contracting \/ extension states \/\/ Official Journal European Patent Office. 2001-05-May. P. 259\u2013270. Conor Medsystems Inc v. Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc & Ors. Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. 339 U.S. 605 (1950). Bernd Hansen, \u200eFritjoff Hirsch. Protecting Inventions in Chemistry: Commentary on Chemical Case Law under the European Patent Convention and the German Patent Law. Wiley-VCH: New York. 1997. 511 p.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hans Henrik Lidgard. National Developments in the Intersection of IPR and Competition Law. Swedish Studies in European Law, 2011. 400 \u0440.<\/p>\n\n\n\n L. J. Leggatt. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. H. N. Norton & CO. LTD. Robert P Merges; Seagull Haiyan Song. Transnational intellectual property law : text and cases. Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Luigi Palombi. The Impact of TRIPS on the Validity of the European Biotechnology Directive. Paul Tauchner. The Principles of the Doctrine of Equivalence in Germany. Toshiko Takenaka. Intellectual Property in Common Law and Civil Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub, 2013. 464 \u0440.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/CC-2.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Ukraine
https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-4253-1489<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/strong>Currently, the development of a modern economy is based on the rapid development of the latest achievements of science and technology, which in turn are the dominant indicators of state development. Globally, economic globalization and trade liberalization are accelerating, leading not only to the international division of labor, the expansion of markets and the corresponding increase in production, but also to an even greater intensification of competition, increasing the need for innovation and their sound legal protection. The principle (doctrine) of equivalence, which the courts apply in the event of patent disputes, is inextricably linked to these processes. The article reveals the essence and specifics of applying the principle of equivalents by studying the specialized literature and conducting comparative legal analysis of foreign jurisprudence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
and equivalent features are not taken into account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/vk.com\/doc-20314689_134730285<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/pravo.sociolife.ru\/docs\/Codex\/GC_komments_4_72_Dzermakyan_2014.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/ru.qwertyu.wiki\/wiki\/European_Patent_Convention<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/docs.cntd.ru\/document\/902308644<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/sojuzpatent.com\/ru\/publications\/2349_652<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/webcache.googleusercontent.com\/search?q=cache:100OBuWEaV8J:heraldlaw.onu.edu.ua\/article\/download\/126516\/121480+&cd=13&hl=ru&ct=clnk&gl=ua<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/rpc\/2001rpc8<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/swarb.co.uk\/american-home-products-corporation-professor-roy-calne-v-novartis-pharmaceuticals-uk-limited-chd-2000\/<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/books.google.com.ua\/books?id=KZfvZN2WfjcC&pg=PA326&lpg=PA326&dq=%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE+Terfenadin+92&source=bl&ots=IUBfl8eDr8&sig=ACfU3U0AzkU3xVdkaM2jkAOo1ANyVQOX6Q&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi97Z3b0NvnAhUjyKYKHcS8CQ4Q6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%20Terfenadin%2092&f=false<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com\/D-016-1227?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/district-courts\/FSupp\/844\/336\/1523405\/<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com\/D-016-1226?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/archive.epo.org\/oj\/issues\/2001\/05\/p259.html<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.casemine.com\/judgement\/uk\/5a8ff70160d03e7f57ea590c<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/339\/605\/<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/rpc\/article\/112\/8\/233\/1592517<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.peacepalacelibrary.nl\/ebooks\/files\/CGKD_Palombi_Impact-TRIPS.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.vossiusandpartner.com\/fileadmin\/Redakteure\/Archiv\/2000_The_Principles_of_the_Doctrine_of.pdf <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n