To determine whether a disputed patent is infringed, the scope of the claims shall first be determined and the composing elements of the accused infringing product shall be analyzed. Second, compare each composing element of such accused product with each of the asserted claims. If such accused product comprises all elements within any single asserted claim, literal infringement is established, and the reverse doctrine of equivalents could be further applied. That is, if such accused product performs the same or a similar function of the asserted claim but in a substantially different way, the the disputed patent is not actually infringed. Contrarily, if such accused product does not contain any single essential elements of the asserted claim, literal infringement is not to be established. At this scenario, the patentee can still allege infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. In doing so, the exact element that such accused product is using to replace the missing element of the asserted claim must possess the required equivalency to the missing element. In judging the equivalency, the inquiry is whether such replacing element performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way, and accomplish substantially the same result. If it does, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is therefore established. Except for the grounds baring the application of the doctrine of equivalents, such as prior art limitation and prosecution history estoppel, patent infringement is finally established.

Patent Act: Article 84; Article 85, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2; Article 106 Civil Code: Article 179; Article 184; Article 185; Article 195, Paragraph 1 (backend) Company Act: Article 23, Paragraph 2