期刊文献+

美国方法专利拆分侵权认定的最新趋势--以Akamai案为视角 被引量:5

The Latest Trends of Determination of Split Infringement to Method Patent: From the Perspective of Akamai Case
下载PDF
导出
摘要 方法专利是由多个有时间过程要素的步骤组成,易为多个主体拆分实施,Akamai案即为典型。该案中,地方法院依实质性侵权的"控制或指挥"标准判定被告不构成侵权;联邦巡回上诉法院改变现有规则做出了近乎相反的判决;而联邦最高法院却撤销原判,发回重审,有回归现有规则的趋势。我国多主体专利侵权认定的司法实践中对直接侵权与共同侵权的界限不明,对"全面覆盖"原则适用不严,不当扩大了专利权的保护范围。我国应严格遵守"全面覆盖"原则,借鉴"控制或指挥"标准,权利人也可从撰写技术层面避免拆分侵权。 Method patent is composed of several steps involving elements of time process, which can be splited to implement by multiple legal subjects, such as Akamai case. In this case, the district court verdicted that the defendant's act was not infringement on the basis of "control or command" criterion of substantive tort, which was modified by Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the almost opposite verdict, and might be recovered due to the revocation decision of the Federal Supreme Court. In the judicial practice of Determination of multiple legal subjects infringement of patent in China, the boundary of direct infi-ingement and joint infringement is not clear, the application of the principle of "comprehensive cover" is not strict, which results in the improper expansion of the protective scope of patent fight, the principle of "comprehensive cover" should be observed and the "control or command" criterion should be used for reference in China. Split infringement can be avoided through technical writing by subjects.
作者 刘友华 徐敏
出处 《知识产权》 CSSCI 北大核心 2014年第9期89-96,共8页 Intellectual Property
基金 国家社会科学基金项目“云计算专利法律问题研究”(12CFX082)的阶段性成果、“法治湖南与区域社会治理协同创新中心”之“知识产权保护研究平台”的建设成果
关键词 方法专利 拆分侵权 引诱侵权 直接侵权 method patent split infringement lure infiingement direct infi'ingement
  • 相关文献

参考文献19

  • 1《专利审查指南》,第二部分第二章3.1.1权利要求的类型,知识产权出版社2010年版,第141页.
  • 2Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. ( 1961 ).
  • 3Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. ( 1972 ).
  • 4Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Flakt, Inc ( 1993 ).
  • 5Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp. ( 2004 ) .
  • 6Aro M_fg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336, 341, 81 S.Ct. 599, 5 L.Ed.2d 592 (1961).
  • 7BMC Resources, Inc., v. Paymenteeh, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
  • 8Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
  • 9Akamai v. Limelight & McKesson v. Epic(Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc).
  • 10LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner v.AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.No. 12-786.

二级参考文献15

  • 1Horacio E. Guti 6 rrez, Peering through the Cloud: The Future of Intellectual Property and Computing, 20 Federal Circuit Bar Journal 589 (2011).
  • 2Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301(Fed.Cir.2012) (en banc), available at: http://www.cafcuscourts.gov/ images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1372-1380-1416-141710-1291 .pdf.
  • 3BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373, at 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
  • 4See id. See also Restatement (Second) of Agency s 220.
  • 5Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
  • 6See Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., No. 10-6, 2011 WL 2119109 (May 31, 2011).
  • 7See also Mark Lemley, Inducing Patent Infringement, 39 U. C. D. L. Rev. 225, 227 (2005).
  • 8See In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc).
  • 9DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc) ( "[I]nducement requires that the alleged infringer knowingly induced infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another' s infringement." ).
  • 10Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (May 31,2011).

共引文献9

同被引文献40

引证文献5

二级引证文献6

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