期刊文献+

中美日欧医药用途发明专利审查制度对比分析 被引量:1

Analysis of the patent examination systems of pharmaceutical use invention in China,United States,Japan and European
原文传递
导出
摘要 本文对比了中美日欧医药用途发明的专利审查制度,并结合现行中国专利审查指南的相关规定,以及司法审判的典型案例,提出了在制药用途权利要求的新颖性评判中如何考虑用药特征的审查建议,以期为我国制定合理的制药用途权利要求新颖性评判规则和加强医药用途发明的专利保护拓展思路。 Here we compared the patent examination systems of pharmaceutical use invention in China,United States,Japan and European. Combined with China's patent examination guide,and representative judicial cases,we put forward proposal of how to consider the characteristics of medicinal use in novelty examination of pharmaceutical preparation use claims,and put forward the feasible novelty judge method. The suggestions in this paper may help to developing reasonable novelty examination standard for pharmaceutical preparation use claims and enhance the protection of pharmaceutical use inventions.
出处 《中国新药杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2017年第7期737-741,共5页 Chinese Journal of New Drugs
关键词 医药用途发明 专利审查 司法审判 制药用途 新颖性 用药特征 pharmaceutical use invention patent examination judicial pharmaceutical preparation use novelty characteristics of medicinal use
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献14

  • 1Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Baker Norton ( Bristol-Myers Squibb 2001 ).
  • 2PROCES-VERBAL, de la 81e session du CONSEIL DADMINISTRATION (Munich, du 5 au 7 septembre 2000) ,CA/PV 81 e, http: ff documents, epo. org/projects/babylon/eponet, nsf/0/dd48584f46d53239c125727e004187f3/$ file/fcpv081, pdf.
  • 3Revision of the EPC : Articles 52 (4) and 54 ( 5 ) ", CA/PL 7199, points 19 and 24 - 26, Orig. : German, Munich, 2.3.1999, http:// documents, epo. org/projects/babylon/eponet, nsf./0/edff57c40d17b46c1257280003e7a4c/$file/capl 99007_en. pdf.
  • 4Revision des EP?, Verwaltungsrat (zur Beschlu? fassung), Ausschu? "Patentrecht" (zur Unterrichtung) CA/110/99, page 1, point 1, No. 5, 19, Orig. : englisch, MUnchen, den 07. 12. 1999, http: // documents, epo. org/projects/babylon/eponet, nsf/0/ 8e4fga2248f99224c125727c005087eg/$ file/dc99110, pdf.
  • 5Basic Proposal - Explanatory notes, MR/18/00 e, submitted by the Swiss delegation; accepted by the Conference and included as Explanatory Remarks in MR/2/00.
  • 6http://documents, epo. org./projects/babylon/eponet, nsf/0/fa8da239660827a4c12572810041373f/$ file/conf_proceed_mt0024 en. pdf, CONFERENCE OF THE CONTRACTINGSTATES TO REVISE THE 1973 EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION, Munich, 20 to 29 November 2000, Conference Proceedings, MR/24/00, Point 139.
  • 7http ://eur-lex. europa, eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ, do? uri : CONSLEG : 1992R1768 : 20070126 : EN : PDF, ECC 1768/98, Art. 1, Art. 3.
  • 8Case C-392/97.http: //europa. eu. int/smertapi/cgi/sga_ doc? smartapi! celex-plus! ! CELEXnumdoc&lg = en&numdoc =61997J0392.
  • 9EPO G02/08, Reason of decisions, piont 6.5, " If deemed necessary, the freedom of medical practitioners may be protected by other means on the national level ( see also G 1/04, points 6.1 and 6.3 of the Reasons). ".
  • 10http://eur-lex, europa, eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ, do? uri = CONSLEG:2001L0083:20091005 :EN:PDF , EC2001/83.

共引文献16

同被引文献3

引证文献1

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