Editing Doctrine of equivalents (section)

=== Germany ===
German courts typically apply a three-step test known as Schneidmesser's questions:<ref>Schneidmesser II; GRUR 2002, p 513. [[Federal Court of Justice of Germany]], March 12, 2002.</ref>
#Does the variant solve the problem underlying the invention with means that objectively have the same effect?
#Would the [[person skilled in the art]], using the [[common general knowledge]], have realised at the [[Priority right|priority date]] that the variant has the same effect?
#Are the considerations which the skilled person takes into account for the variant in the light of the meaning of the invention close enough to the considerations taken into account for the literal solution protected by the claims, such that the skilled person will consider the variant as a solution which is equivalent to the literal one?

All of the above questions need to be answered in the affirmative in order to demonstrate equivalent infringement. In addition, an allegation of equivalent infringement needs to withstand the [[Formstein defence|Formstein test]].<ref>Schneidmesser II; GRUR 1986, p 803. [[Federal Court of Justice of Germany]], April 29, 1986.</ref> The corresponding question reads:
:Does the variant, having regard to the [[Prior art|state of the art]], lack [[Novelty (patent)|novelty]] or is the variant [[Inventive step and non-obviousness|obvious]] to a person skilled in the art?