The analysis compares the construed claim to the accused product limitation by limitation. Every limitation must be present literally, and absence of one defeats literal infringement regardless of overall similarity.
The doctrine of equivalents provides the alternative theory.
Alternative Names:
Literal Patent Infringement|Direct Literal Infringement
Why it Matters?
The all-limitations requirement makes claim charting the core analytical work, since mapping each limitation against the accused product identifies missing elements systematically rather than through general comparison. Additional features in the accused product do not avoid infringement, since claims using open transitional language capture products containing the recited elements plus others. Closed claim language is the exception worth identifying.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
Do additional features avoid infringement?
What is the core analytical work?
