GRAVER TANK AND MFG. CO. v.

LINDE AIR PRODUCTS COMPANY

340 U.S. 845 (1950)

TOPIC: Doctrine of Equivalent

FACTS:

Plaintiff obtained an improvement patent on an electric welding composition or flux with specifications
that were basically a combination of alkaline earth metal silicate and calcium fluoride. Defendant began
to produce its own composition that instead used silicates of manganese, not an alkaline earth metal,
for the silicates of magnesium, which is an alkaline earth metal used by Plaintiff. Plaintiff charged
Defendant with infringement. Plaintiff had mentioned manganese in its specifications, but it was not
within the specific claims of the patent. Even so, the courts found there was infringement. Defendant
appealed.

ISSUE:

Whether of nit the doctrine of equivalents is applicable to chemical equivalents in compositions or to

mechanical equivalents in devices?

HELD:

YES. The doctrine of equivalents is applied to chemical or mechanical equivalents in compositions or

devices the same way it applies to equivalence in mechanical components. It gives protection to the
patentee against a device, process, or composition which performs largely the same function as the
patented device, process, or composition in largely the same way to obtain the same result. In this case,
the expert testimony is the basis on which the courts below found that silicates of manganese, used by
Defendant, were the "equivalent" of the silicates of magnesium used in Plaintiff"s patented composition
under the doctrine of equivalents. Therefore, the finding of infringement must stand.

Note: Doctrine of Equivalents is a common law doctrine that doesn't have a statutory basis. It was
developed because courts understood that an infringer wouldn't be dumb enough to copy an invention
exactly, they would make a minor change here or there so they didn't literally infringe on the patent.