Case No. IP-2016-000202

107. The Tap Unit does not have integer (2) of claim 1. Nor, as was common ground, does it have integer (4) (receptor means positioned in the base unit in a signal path between input and outputs) on the construction agreed by the parties at the hearing on 17 July 2018. The Tap Unit does not fall within claim 1 on a normal construction. Whether each equivalent feature must be identified 108.Mr Chacksfield submitted that Technetix had not even asserted that the Tap Bank had features equivalent to integers (2) and (4) of claim 1. He said that Technetix’ failure to identify the necessary equivalents to those two integers meant that their case on equivalence was bound to fail. 109.To establish infringement as explained in Actavis a patentee must show that the accused product or process either (i) has all the integers of the claim on a normal construction or alternatively (ii) taking all the equivalent features of the accused product or process in sum, that it satisfies the three revised