Doctrine of Equivalents — English Speaking

Today's expression is "doctrine of equivalents."

This is a legal principle in patent law where an infringement occurs if a product or process does not literally infringe upon the patented invention's claims but does the same work in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result.

Let's look at it in different settings:

1. Writing Example: "The court found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, as the competing device, though not identical in structure, performed the same function in a substantially similar way to achieve the same result."

2. Dialogue Example:
   - Person A: "Our patent was not literally infringed."
   - Person B: "True, but we can argue infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Their product performs a similar function in a substantially similar way."

<dialogue between an in-house counsel and an engineer discussing a potential patent issue in a friendly, informal setting>

The context is about the doctrine of equivalents and its implications for their company's product development.

---

**Scene: In the company's casual lounge area. The in-house counsel, Alex, approaches Sam, an engineer, who is reviewing some product designs.**

Alex: Hey Sam, got a minute?

Sam: Sure, Alex. What's up?

Alex: I've been reviewing our latest product design, and I have some concerns about potential patent infringement.

Sam: Oh? I thought our design was quite distinct from the existing patents out there.

Alex: It is, in a literal sense. But there's something called the 'doctrine of equivalents' in patent law. It can trip us up even if we're not infringing on the exact terms of a competitor’s patent.

Sam: Doctrine of equivalents? Sounds a bit abstract.

Alex: It kind of is. Basically, if our product performs the same function in a substantially similar way to achieve the same result as a patented product, we might be infringing on that patent.

Sam: Huh, that does sound tricky. How do we make sure we steer clear of that?

Alex: It's about understanding the core of what the patent protects. I think we should review our design and see if we're mimicking the 'heart' of another's invention, even in a different way.

Sam: Got it. It’s like making sure our solution isn't just a disguised version of someone else's, right?

Alex: Exactly. It's a fine line sometimes. Your expertise will be invaluable in figuring out if we're too close to that line.

Sam: I appreciate the heads-up, Alex. Let’s sit down with the design team and go through the details. Better safe than sorry!

Alex: That's the spirit. Thanks, Sam. I'll set up a meeting for us all to review the design thoroughly.

---