The doctrine of equivalents in Indian patent law is an important concept that helps protect inventors from others copying their inventions with only small, unimportant changes. It ensures that someone cannot avoid a patent by making minor tweaks to a product or process while still using the core idea of the invention. Even though this doctrine is not clearly written in India’s Patent Act of 1970, Indian courts use it to decide cases where someone’s product or process is very similar to a patented invention but not exactly the same. This article explains the doctrine in an easy-to-understand way, covering what it is, how it works in India, why it’s important, the legal rules around it, how courts test for equivalence, real-life examples, limitations, and how India’s approach compares to other countries.
Step into the future of legal expertise! Join our Advanced Certification Program in Intellectual Property Law, created by The Legal School in collaboration with Khaitan & Co. Designed for fresh law graduates and professionals, this unique course boosts your legal career. Don’t miss this opportunity—enquire today to secure your spot!
What is the Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law?
The doctrine of equivalents in Indian patent law is a rule that says a product or process can still infringe a patent even if it doesn’t exactly match the patent’s description (called the “claims”). Instead, it applies when the product or process:
Does the same job (function),
In a very similar way,
To get the same result as the patented invention.
For example, imagine a patented machine that uses a screw to hold parts together. If someone makes a machine that uses a bolt instead of a screw but works the same way and gets the same result, the doctrine of equivalents could say it’s still infringing the patent. This rule stops people from making tiny changes to avoid getting in trouble while still copying the main idea of the invention.
Why is the Doctrine of Equivalents Important?
This doctrine is important because it protects inventors. Without it, someone could copy an invention, make a small change, and claim it’s different enough to avoid the patent. This would make patents less valuable because others could easily get around them. However, the doctrine also has to be fair. If it’s applied too broadly, it could stop other people from creating new inventions. Indian courts try to find a balance by carefully looking at whether the differences between the patented invention and the accused product are small and unimportant.
How is the Doctrine of Equivalents Used in India?
In India, the Patent Act of 1970 doesn’t directly mention the doctrine of equivalents so courts rely on their own interpretations to apply it. They use it in cases of “non-literal infringement,” which means the accused product doesn’t exactly match the patent’s claims but is close enough to be considered a copy. For example, if a patented device uses a specific material and someone makes a similar device with a slightly different material that works the same way, the court might decide it’s infringing under this doctrine. Because there’s no clear law spelling out how to use the doctrine, different judges might apply it differently, which can make outcomes less predictable.
Learn about the procedures of Patent Registration.
Legal Framework: Doctrine of Equivalents in Indian Patent Law
India’s Patent Act of 1970 (Sections 104–114) covers patent infringement, including two types
Literal Infringement: When a product or process exactly matches every part of the patent’s claims.
Non-Literal Infringement (Doctrine of Equivalents): When a product or process is very similar to the patented invention, even if it has some differences.
Indian courts use a method called purposive construction to interpret patents. This means they focus on what the invention is really about (its “essential elements”) rather than sticking strictly to the exact words in the patent. This approach, supported by a case called Bishwanath Prasad Radhe Shyam, helps courts decide if a product is equivalent to the patented invention by looking at its core features.
Tests for Determining Equivalence
Since the Patent Act doesn’t provide specific rules for the doctrine of equivalents, Indian courts have developed tests to figure out if a product or process is equivalent to a patented invention. Here are the main tests they use
1. Triple Identity Test
This is the most common test. It checks if the accused product or process:
Does substantially the same job (function),
In substantially the same way,
To get substantially the same result as the patented invention.
If all three things are true, the product might be considered infringing, even if it’s not exactly the same.
2. All Elements Test
This test looks at each part (or “element”) of the patent’s claims. For a product to infringe, it must have every element of the patent or something very similar. This test focuses on details of the patent to make sure the accused product isn’t too different.
3. Criteria for Essential vs. Non-Essential Elements
Courts also decide which parts of the patent are “essential” (really important to how the invention works) and which are “non-essential” (less important). They consider:
What a skilled person in the field would know at the time the patent was published.
Whether a small change (like using a different material) would still let the invention work the same way.
What the inventor meant when writing the patent (based on the claims, not outside evidence).
These tests help courts decide if the differences between patented invention and accused product are small enough to count as equivalent.
Limitations of the Doctrine
In order to keep the doctrine fair, there is a limit to how it can be used:
File Wrapper Estoppel: When a patent is being approved, the inventor might narrow their claims to avoid overlapping with existing inventions (called “prior art”). If they do this, they can’t later use the doctrine of equivalents to claim those same elements they gave up. This prevents inventors from trying to get broader protection than what they were granted.
Summary
The doctrine of equivalents in Indian patent law is a key tool that protects inventors from others copying their inventions with small unimportant changes. It allows courts to find infringement when a product or process is substantially the same as a patented invention even if it’s not an exact match. Indian courts use tests like the triple identity test and the all elements test to decide if something is equivalent focusing on invention’s essential features. Limitations like file wrapper estoppel and reverse doctrine ensure fairness balancing the rights of patent holders with the need to encourage new inventions. As technology grows Indian courts will likely need to provide clearer guidelines to make the doctrine more predictable.
Related Posts:
Doctrine of Equivalents in Indian Patent Law: FAQs
Q1. What is the doctrine of equivalents in Indian patent law?
It’s a rule that says a product or process can infringe a patent even if it doesn’t exactly match the patent’s claims, as long as it does the same job, in a similar way, with the same result.
Q2. What is an example of the doctrine of equivalents?
If a patented machine uses a screw to hold parts together and another machine uses a bolt but works the same way, the doctrine might find infringement because the change is minor.
Q3. What is ensnarement in the doctrine of equivalents?
Ensnarement stops the doctrine from covering things the patent holder couldn’t claim because of existing inventions (prior art), keeping the patent’s scope fair and valid.
Q4. What are the limits of the doctrine of equivalents?
Limits include file wrapper estoppel (can’t claim elements given up during patent approval) and the reverse doctrine (no infringement if the product is fundamentally different).
Q5. How is the doctrine of equivalents described on Wikipedia?
Wikipedia explains it as a patent law principle that finds infringement when a product has minor differences but still copies the essence of the patented invention.
