The all-elements rule
The all-elements rule — the Federal Circuit often calls it the all-limitations rule — says that a product or process infringes only if it contains every limitation of an asserted claim, either literally or by an equivalent. Missing even one limitation defeats infringement of that claim. The same logic runs in reverse for validity: a single prior-art reference anticipates only if it discloses every limitation, arranged as in the claim.
The rule
A patent claim defines the invention by its limitations, and every limitation matters. To prove infringement, the patentee must show that the accused product or process meets each limitation of the asserted claim. If one limitation is absent — and no equivalent of it is present — the claim is not infringed, no matter how similar the accused product is overall.
The rule applies at two levels:
- Literal infringement: every limitation, as construed by the court, must be found exactly in the accused product.
- Doctrine of equivalents: each limitation that is not literally present must be met by an equivalent element. Equivalence is assessed limitation by limitation, not by comparing the accused product to the invention "as a whole."
Courts use "element" and "limitation" interchangeably in this context. The Federal Circuit has explained that in this rule "element" is used in the sense of a claim limitation, see Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989), which is why both "all-elements rule" and "all-limitations rule" appear in the cases.
Source of the rule
The rule follows from the statutory requirement that claims particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and from the public-notice function of claims: the public is entitled to rely on each limitation as a boundary of the patentee's rights.
The Federal Circuit applied it to the doctrine of equivalents en banc in Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987), holding that equivalence must be established for each limitation of the claim. The Supreme Court adopted the same approach in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997):
Each element contained in a patent claim is deemed material to defining the scope of the patented invention, and thus the doctrine of equivalents must be applied to individual elements of the claim, not to the invention as a whole.
Id. at 29. The Court added that if a theory of equivalence would entirely vitiate a particular claim element, partial or complete judgment should be rendered by the court. Id. at 39 n.8.
Vitiation
"Vitiation" is the name for the all-elements rule's limit on the doctrine of equivalents. An equivalence theory that would read a limitation out of the claim entirely — for example, treating "mounted on the top" as equivalent to "mounted on the bottom," or a "non-zero" value as equivalent to zero — is legally barred.
The Federal Circuit has cautioned that vitiation is not an exception to the doctrine of equivalents but a conclusion that, on the evidence, no reasonable jury could find the element equivalent. Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The question is whether the accused feature performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result, or differs only insubstantially, for that limitation — not whether the two products look alike overall.
The parallel rule for anticipation
Validity has a mirror image of the all-elements rule. A claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 only if a single prior-art reference discloses every limitation of the claim, arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A reference may disclose a limitation expressly or inherently, but picking and choosing among separate embodiments of a reference to assemble the claim is not anticipation.
Obviousness under § 103 is different. It considers "the claimed invention as a whole," and a limitation missing from one reference may be supplied by another reference or, with care, by the knowledge and common sense of a person of ordinary skill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The Federal Circuit has warned that common sense cannot substitute for reasoned analysis when a limitation is missing altogether. Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Every limitation must still be accounted for.
The often-quoted maxim "that which infringes, if later, would anticipate, if earlier" captures the symmetry. Peters v. Active Manufacturing Co., 129 U.S. 530 (1889).
How the rule plays out
- Claim charts. Local patent rules require infringement and invalidity charts that map each limitation to the accused product or prior art. An uncharted limitation is a gap that can end the case.
- Claim construction. Because a single limitation can be dispositive, claim construction fights usually concentrate on the one or two limitations the accused product arguably lacks.
- Dependent claims. A dependent claim includes all the limitations of the claim it depends from, so if the independent claim is not infringed, the dependent claims are not infringed either. See Wahpeton Canvas Co. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The reverse is not true for validity: a dependent claim may survive when its independent claim is invalid.
- Means-plus-function limitations. A limitation written under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is literally met only by structure that performs the identical claimed function and is the same as or equivalent to the structure disclosed in the specification.
- Divided infringement. For method claims, all steps must be performed by or attributable to a single entity for direct infringement. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). See direct infringement.
- Indirect infringement. Contributory and induced infringement require a direct infringement in which all limitations are met.
Frequently asked questions
What is the all-elements rule in patent law?
It is the rule that an accused product or process infringes a claim only if it contains every limitation of that claim, either literally or by an equivalent. If any limitation is missing, that claim is not infringed.
Does the all-elements rule apply to the doctrine of equivalents?
Yes. Under Warner-Jenkinson (1997) and Pennwalt (1987), equivalence is tested limitation by limitation, and an equivalence theory that would vitiate a claim limitation entirely is barred as a matter of law.
Is there an all-elements rule for anticipation?
Yes. A single prior-art reference anticipates only if it discloses every claim limitation, arranged as in the claim, expressly or inherently (Net MoneyIN v. VeriSign, 2008). Obviousness, by contrast, may combine references.
What is vitiation?
Vitiation describes an equivalence argument that would effectively remove a claim limitation. The Federal Circuit treats it as a conclusion that no reasonable jury could find equivalence for that limitation (Deere v. Bush Hog, 2012).
See also
- Literal infringementEvery limitation present exactly as construed.
- Doctrine of equivalentsEquivalence assessed limitation by limitation.
- AnticipationThe single-reference, every-element rule for validity.
- Prosecution history estoppelThe other major limit on equivalents.
- Claim constructionDefines what each limitation requires.
- Local patent rulesWhere element-by-element charts are required.
Last reviewed: October 2026