Intellectual Property Law

Chapter 20 Case Study Answers

Case Study: Fit Forever has a patent for an elliptical machine. It recently discovered that
one of its competitors, Cross-Train, is selling a nearly identical machine. Cross-Train’s
machine does not literally infringe Fit Forever’s patented machine because one of the
elements in Fit Forever’s patent is not present in Cross-Train’s machine. Nevertheless,
Cross-Train’s machine performs the same functions in the same way as Fit Forever’s
machine.

Activity: Discuss whether Cross-Train’s machine has infringed Fit Forever’s machine.

Although Cross-Train’s device does not literally infringe Fit Forever’s
patent (because one of the elements in the patent is not present in the
accused device), Cross-Train’s machine may nevertheless be found to
infringe under the doctrine of equivalents, meaning that it performs
substantially the same function in substantially the same way to reach
substantially the same result as the limitation in Fit Forever’s claim.
Showing that the two devices are equivalent overall is not sufficient to
establish infringement, however. Fit Forever must show that every
limitation of its claim is met literally or by a substantial equivalent.