ement ▁to ▁make , ▁construct , ▁or ▁sell ▁a ▁thing ▁that ▁copies ▁the ▁essential ▁elements ▁of ▁a ▁pat ented ▁in vention ▁without ▁permission . ▁Sub st itution ▁or ▁om ission ▁of ▁a ▁non - ess ential ▁elements ▁is ▁not ▁sufficient ▁to ▁make ▁something ▁non - in fr ing ing . ▁The ▁Canadian ▁pat ent ▁holder ▁thus ▁receives ▁protection ▁" ag ain st ▁a ▁device ▁that ▁performs ▁substantial ly ▁the ▁same ▁function ▁in ▁substantial ly ▁the ▁same ▁way ▁to ▁obtain ▁substantial ly ▁the ▁same ▁result ", ▁similar ▁to ▁the ▁protection ▁available ▁to ▁an ▁American ▁pat ent ▁holder ▁under ▁the ▁doctrine ▁of ▁equival ents . ▁ ▁Once ▁the ▁essential ▁elements ▁of ▁the ▁pat ented ▁in vention ▁are ▁established , ▁determ ining ▁whether ▁there ▁is ▁an ▁in fr ing ement ▁is ▁simply ▁an ▁exercise ▁in ▁comparison ▁between ▁the ▁alleg edly ▁in fr ing ing ▁thing ▁and ▁the ▁pat ented ▁in vention . ▁If ▁the ▁essential ▁elements ▁of ▁the ▁pat ented ▁in vention ▁are ▁present ▁in ▁the ▁thing ▁in ▁issue , ▁then ▁that ▁thing ▁is ▁in fr ing ing . ▁ ▁In ▁general , ▁a ▁def endant ' s ▁intention ▁is ▁not ▁relevant ▁in ▁establish ing ▁an ▁in fr ing ement : ▁the ▁fact ▁of ▁in fr ing ement ▁is ▁sufficient . ▁An ▁exception ▁ar ises ▁in ▁cases ▁of ▁in fr ing ement ▁by ▁possession . ▁You ▁can ▁re but ▁a ▁claim ▁of ▁in fr ing ement ▁by ▁possession ▁by ▁showing ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁intent ▁to ▁use ▁or ▁benefit ▁from ▁that ▁possession . ▁ ▁Using ▁C ases