patent infringement

(redirected from Literal infringement)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus.
Related to Literal infringement: patent infringement

patent infringement

n. the manufacture and/or use of an invention or improvement for which someone else owns a patent issued by the government, without obtaining permission of the owner of the patent by contract, license or waiver. The infringing party will be liable to the owner of the patent for all profits made from the use of the invention, as well as any harm which can be shown by the inventor, whether the infringement was intentional or not. (See: patent, infringement)

References in periodicals archive ?
Two types of infringement exist for any patent claim: literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
On a side note, if a specification discloses an algorithm in functional terms, arguably the accused device would only infringe if it employs an identical algorithm because literal infringement under [section] 112 [paragraph] requires identity of function.
and ruling on literal infringement on summary judgment, district courts
(59) The court found, however, that [section] 112, paragraph 6, equivalence differs from the doctrine of equivalents in that [section] 112, paragraph 6, equivalence may lead only to a finding of literal infringement. (60) As previously noted, no support for this reading can be found in the statute.
"Literal infringement occurs when every element of the claim, as construed by the court, is found exactly in the accused device." (9) When an accused device does not literally infringe a patent, the courts may find the accused infringer to have infringed a patent under the doctrine of equivalents.
CTC's model X500 pasta maker was ruled a literal infringement of claim 6 of the Popeil patent, the claim that includes an egress opening in the extrusion chamber.
1998) ("Literal infringement requires that the accused device contain each limitation of the claim exactly; any deviation from the claim precludes a finding of literal infringement." (citing Cole v.
Although it found no literal infringement, the Federal Circuit panel affirmed the district court's finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.(162) Judge Schall observed that even when an accused device does not literally infringe a patent claim, it may still infringe under the doctrine of equivalents "if the differences between the claim and the accused device are insubstantial."(163) The district court had found that differences between the use of multiple random numbers and a multistep process of the WMS 400 and the single random number and direct process of selecting a reel stop position claimed by the Telnaes patent were insubstantial.(164)
1987) (in banc) (reasoning that, if the test for literal infringement relied upon the literal breadth of means-plus-function language in the claims, then "any and every means which performs the function specified in the claim [would] literally satisf[y] that limitation").
to literal infringement would link the scope of the patent to the extent
(19) Graver Tank held that not to recognize any infringement beyond literal infringement "would be to convert the protection of the patent grant into a hollow and useless thing." (20) The Court further recognized that to do otherwise "would be subordinating substance to form" (21) and would permit one to "practice a fraud on a patent." (22) After endorsing the doctrine of equivalents as a necessary component of patent law, Graver Tank articulated the test for applying the doctrine commonly known as the "function-way-result" test.