patent infringement

(redirected from Literal infringement)
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal.
Related to Literal infringement: patent infringement
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Noun1.patent infringement - violation of the rights secured by a patent
infringement, violation - an act that disregards an agreement or a right; "he claimed a violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment"
References in periodicals archive ?
271 - Infringement - Markman proceedings in the courts - Literal Infringement - Doctrine of Equivalents analysis - Hilton Davis v.
146) After determining literal infringement under [section] 112 [paragraph] 6, the next step would be the infringement analysis under the doctrine of equivalents extending the functional claim element to its equivalents.
Court's 1996 Markman decision, both the literal infringement and
16) Further, it held that [section] 112, paragraph 6, deals only with literal infringement, and that if [section] 112, paragraph 6, equivalence is not found in an accused device, one must proceed to consider whether equivalence is present under the doctrine of equivalents.
Literal infringement happens when it is possible to read the words of the claims into the accused product or process.
In January of this year, Osteotech filed a motion for summary judgment of literal infringement of claims 4 and 10 of Osteotech's United States Patent 5,290,558, or the '558 Patent , which the District Court granted in April 2001.
According the judge's summary of the April ruling, a patent infringement lawsuit can be interpreted in two ways: literal infringement end the doctrine of equivalents.
ICU knows that with this jury verdict, the only ICU patent that RyMed may be held liable for literal infringement has already expired, and all new sales are free from any such claims," said Dana Wm.
DuPont's counsel stated on the record, "We do not assert literal infringement as to any of the products that are at issue in Heraeus' motion.
enable the accused device in order for there to be literal infringement.
In November 2006, the Federal Circuit agreed with Medtronic that there was no literal infringement of the patent, but remanded the case for trial under the doctrine of equivalents.
The Court made no overall determination on literal infringement and denied Gevo's motions of invalidity on all but two of 37 patent claims being asserted by Butamax against Gevo.