方法特徵表徵的产品权利要求:保护范围与侵权判定 评最高人民法院“独一味软胶囊提审案”(2010)民提字第158号
Product by Process Claim:Extent of Protection and Infringement Determination Comments on Youta Corp.v.Wangao Corp.(No.Mintizi 158(Supreme People's Court of China,2010)
摘要
优他公司与万高公司等专利侵权案（以下简称＂独一味软胶囊提审案＂）是最高人民法院精选出作为《最高人民法院知识产權案件年度报告》（2010）示范指导案例之一。此案最引人关注的法律问题在于方法特徵表徵的产品權利要求的保护范围、禁止反悔原则的法律适用以及被诉侵权生产工艺认定的证据规则。本文将细致地分析和讨论它们。为此,以下首先综述相关的法律事实和各审法院的法律意见。
出处
《中国专利与商标》
2011年第4期3-17,共15页
China Patents & Trademarks
二级参考文献9
-
1Article 59 paragraph one, of the Patent Law of P.R. China: The extent of protection for a patent for invention or utility model shall be determined by the terms of the claims. The description and the appended drawings may be used to interpret the content of the claims.
-
2In the amendment to these Opinions circulated for comments, this provision has changed a great deal. See Article 54 of the Draft of the Opinions on Several Issues Relating to Patent Infringement Adjudication issued for comments (April 2011).
-
3By the doctrine of estoppel is meant that where during the patent prosecution or invalidation procedure, a patentee narrows, or surrenders a part of, the claims through written statement, or amendment made to the application or the patent, the court hearing infringement action must not allow the patentee to recapture what he has delimited, excluded, or surrendered by using the doctrine of equivalents in a later infringement action. Article 56.
-
4The doctrine of estoppel should applies only when the following conditions are met: (1) the narrowing or surrendering of the relevant technical features by a patent applicant or patentee must be explicit in the patent documentation, valid and final decision of validity or administrative decisions; and (2) the technical content so narrowed or surrendered must have material effect on the grant or maintenance of the patent.
-
5535 U.S. 722 (21)02).
-
6234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
-
7See Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc., v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 39-40 (1997).
-
8See, e.g., Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc., v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 37-38 (1997).
-
9See Article 35 of the Opinions on Several Issues Relating to Patent Infringement Adjudication: "Equivalents shall be interchangeable between technical features, not between two technical solutions as a whole.".
-
1张艶,劉曉玉,劉荷輝.中美关于功能性限定特徵的实务的比较——兼谈诺基亚诉华勤专利侵权案[J].中国专利与商标,2014(2):20-32. 被引量：3
-
2鹿士杰,毛習文,宋獻濤.从格力诉美的专利侵权案谈等同侵权判定的综合把握[J].中国专利与商标,2014(3):36-50.
-
3邢良选,李永翊,魏树巍.一件专利侵权案一案多判引发的思考[J].中国发明与专利,2010(11):83-86.
-
4彭正秋.探讨打击破坏电力设施违法犯罪行为的相关法律问题[J].大科技,2012(12):32-33.
-
5张苏沛.企业专利维权启示录之八 从一则专利侵权案谈自由公知技术抗辩原则和禁止反悔原则[J].江苏科技信息,2007(5):16-18.
-
6蒋洪义.葡萄糖酸钙锌口服溶液专利侵权再审案评析[J].中国发明与专利,2011(10):104-108.
-
7王献茹.浅谈产品权利要求中的用途限定[J].中国发明与专利,2016,0(10):100-101.
-
8谭蔚.预防和处理人身触电事故的法律思考[J].大众用电,2002,18(12):6-7.
-
9廖宜诚,朱德灵.关于住宅小区电力设施资产接收法律问题的思考[J].广西电业,2009(12):42-45. 被引量：4
-
10瞿宁宁.以案说法,也谈电网建设的风险防范[J].农电管理,2014(8):49-51.
