How does the doctrine of equivalents relate to making a prima facie case of equivalence?

How does the doctrine of equivalents relate to making a prima facie case of equivalence?

The doctrine of equivalents and making a prima facie case of equivalence are related concepts in patent law, but they apply in different contexts. The MPEP clarifies this relationship:

“The determination of equivalence for purposes of the nonstatutory (obviousness-type) double patenting rejection is not the same as the determination of equivalence for purposes of the doctrine of equivalents.”

Key differences include:

• Prima facie case of equivalence is used during patent examination
• Doctrine of equivalents is applied in patent infringement cases
• Prima facie case focuses on interchangeability at the time of invention
• Doctrine of equivalents considers insubstantial differences between the claimed invention and an accused product or process

While both concepts deal with equivalence, they serve different purposes in the patent system. The prima facie case helps examiners assess patentability, while the doctrine of equivalents helps courts determine infringement in cases where there isn’t literal infringement but the differences are insubstantial.

To learn more:

• doctrine of equivalents
• prima facie case
• patent examination
• patent infringement
• equivalence determination