DEnMARK
WHERE A REAsonABLE CAsE foR InfRInGEMEnt of RIGHts CAn
BE RAIsED, tHAt CAsE sHoULD BE BRoUGHt WItHoUt DELAY
infringement of rights can be raised, that case should be brought without term ‘equivalent’, as it is not based on a clear statute but instead on a large
delay. Waiting too long may open a number of costly legal issues and may literature of national decisions.
ultimately prevent any eff ective action at all.
An indication of how the term will be used in Danish litigation was given on
Infringement under the doctrine of equivalence
March 27, 2009 when the Danish Supreme Court used the term ‘technical
equivalence’ for the fi rst time in a patent infringement case.
In the context of patent litigation, the patent claims determine the scope of
the patent, and claim construction is a question of national law. However, in
In said case, the company Guldager A/S, which had obtained a European
order to ensure a unifying interpretation of European patents, the European
Patent validated in Denmark, sued the company Dansk Elektrolyse A/S for
Patent Convention (EPC) 2000—which came into eff ect on December 13,
patent infringement. Th e patent, which related to a method for corrosion-
2007—includes an amended ‘Protocol on the interpretation of Art 69 EPC’,
proofi ng a water system, had a main claim that referred to a single water tank
which is intended to bring about uniformity at a national level between
and the use of electrodes directly connected to an electrolysis power source.
contracting states to the EPC when interpreting patent claims.
Even though the infringing system had two water tanks and the system did
Th e amended text reads:
not comprise electrodes that were directly connected to a power source,
the supreme court stated “...that the used system falls within the scope
“For the purpose of determining the extent of protection conferred by
of protection or is at least considered to be technical equivalent with the
a European patent, due account shall be taken of any element which is
claimed invention”. Th e Danish supreme courts awarded the proprietor
an equivalent to an element specifi ed in the claims.” Guldager A/S DKK1.8 million (€241,000) in damages.
Even though no defi nition of what was meant by the term ‘equivalent’ Th e Danish courts have always awarded patent protection beyond the strict
was included in the protocol, two devices can normally be said to be literal meaning of the wording of the claims, but have never before used the
‘equivalent’ if it can be shown that a device accused of infringement word ‘equivalents’, even though ‘equivalence’ has been argued by the lawyers.
performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way Previously, the Danish courts used the term ‘the core of the patent’, which
to obtain the same result as defi ned in the patent. However, it is likely gives a broader scope of protection than the strict literal meaning but only if
that diff erent EPC countries will have diff erent understandings of the said scope can be understood by reading the patent. Hopefully, the Guldager
www.worldipreview.com World Intellectual Property Review Digest 2009 59
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173