期刊文献+

试论方法特征限定的产品权利要求的撰写形式与保护范围 被引量:2

The Form and Scope of Product-by-process Claim
下载PDF
导出
摘要 方法特征限定的产品权利要求是指产品权利要求的技术方案部分或者全部由方法特征进行限定。对于这类权利要求,各国对于其可专利性存在不同的规定;对于方法特征对整个权利要求的保护范围所产生的影响也存在不同看法;在专利侵权诉讼中应当如何分配举证责任也存在不同的做法。通过研究目前国际上的各种相关规定,对于方法特征限定的产品权利要求进行理论和实践上的分析,尝试提出解决上述问题的方法。 A product-by-process claim is a product claim where the technical solution set forth in the product (partly or entirely) is limited by process (method) features. As to the patentability of such claims, different regulations are used in different countries. Moreover, how the process features in the claim affect the scope of the claim is an issue that introduces ambiguity. Meanwhile, since the burden of proof varies when determining infringement of product claims and method claims, how should the burden of proof be assigned is also a problem that needs clarified. All these issues lead to uncertainties in the patent examination practice and patent infringement dispute, which brings confusion to the public. Therefore, all such issues related to product-by-process claims need to be standardized clearly and briefly in the practice of the patent examination and infringement. It is on the basis of the study of different regulations in the international community and the theoretical and practical analysis of the product-by-process claim that this article addresses these issues.
出处 《知识产权》 CSSCI 北大核心 2012年第7期100-105,共6页 Intellectual Property
关键词 方法特征限定的产品权利要求 保护范围 举证责任 product-by-process claim scope burden of proof
  • 相关文献

二级参考文献8

  • 1南条雅裕.プロダクト?パィ?プロゼス?クレ-ムの榷利解釈[J].パテント,2002,Vol.55,No.5.
  • 2美国第35法典第112条第2段.
  • 3Ah Law. Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc. [ EB/OL]. [ 2009 -6 -10]. http://www. altlaw. org/vl/cases/412144.
  • 4Alt Law. Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp. [ EB/OL]. [2009 -6 -10]. http://www. altlaw. org/vl/cases/413170.
  • 5United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz Inc. [ EB/OL ]. [ 2009 - 6 - 20 ]. http ://www. cafc. uscourts. gov/opinions/07 - 1400. pdf.
  • 6U.S. Supreme Court Cases. Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company, 93 U. S. 486(1876) [ EB/OL]. [2009 -6 - 18]. http:///supreme. justia.com/us/93/486/.
  • 7U.S. Supreme Court Cases. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company V. Davis, 102 U. S. 222(1880) [ EB/OL]. [2009-6- 18]. http://supreme. justia. com/us/102/222/.
  • 8United States Patent and Trademark Office. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure :2113 [ EB/OL]. [ 2009 - 6 - 29 ]. http : //www. uspto. gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep. htm.

引证文献2

二级引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部