※ 引述《neffen (neffen)》之铭言： : ※ 引述《colinh (ColinH)》之铭言： : : 美国法院和USPTO对专利范围的解读是否有效或是否需要核驳是站在不同的标准上 : 呃...有人可以简单解释一下不同的标准是差在哪里吗? : 还是有相关书籍或文章可以让我延伸阅读一下 : 抱歉, 我是新手, 希望问的问题不会很蠢 前一篇中priorart大推文已经有解释 以下是我个人的看法与到处乱抄的东西 首先从section 282第一段说起 35 U.S.C. 282 Presumption of validity; defenses. A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if a claim to a composition of matter is held invalid and that claim was the basis of a determination of nonobviousness under section 103(b)(1), the process shall no longer be considered nonobvious solely on the basis of section 103(b)(1). The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity. 对於已获证诉讼中的专利 必须先假设为专利有效 对有效的专利, 可以提出defense 若提出的defense是无效则要有证据可以推翻这个假设 Section 282提供了四类的defense 1. 不侵权 2. 因无可专利性无效 3. 不符合section 112或251无效 4. 其他 CAFC在1996年内 Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc.案中 决定若要推翻这个假设的有效性 主张专利无效者有责任提出明确且具说服力(clear and convincing)水准的证据 Microsoft曾经在对Z4的案子被判侵权败诉後 请求上诉最高法院将证据水准降低 不过被最高法院不受理 这个Presumption of valid也影响到法院对专利的claim construction 过去上级法院的案例建立了一些解读专利的原则 而法院在解读权利范围时必须遵守这些原则 其中之一就是解读要尽可能的支持专利有效性 在1983年 CAFC的案例中 CAFC判决认为: 当解读权的立范围会导致专利无效时 适当的法律结论是为不侵权 而非专利无效 (这个原则的起源可追溯至1864年最高法院的判决) Carman Industries, Inc. v. Wahl, CAFC, 1983 - Claims should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity. Turrill v. Michigan S. & N.I.R.R. Co., 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 491, 510, 17 L. Ed. 668 (1864); Klein v. Russell, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 433, 466, 22 L. Ed. 116 (1874). If such a construction would result in invalidity of the claims, the appropriate legal conclusion is one of non-infringement, not invalidity 但是後来当然也有其他案例再进一步解释 否则法院都不用判专利无效了: 当唯一的claim construction符合claim language与written description 而且此解读会让该claim无效时 上述判决的原则不适用 这个claim就是单纯的无效 Rhine v. Casio, Inc., CAFC, 1999 - The Court has consistently limited the axiom to cases where the construction is "practicable" and does not conflict with the explicit language of the claim. .... if the only claim construction that is consistent with the claim's language and the written description renders the claim invalid, then the axiom does not apply and the claim is simply invalid. 後续还有其他的case law进一步说明与补充这个原则 在此就不多说了 有兴趣者可以参考Chisum on Patents之类的书 但是USPTO对专利申请案与专利的解读则与法院的原则有差异 申请时就不多说了 申请案并非专利 自然没有Section 282的presumption of validity 另外CAFC 1985年的案例亦支持PTO在处理再审查程序时 Section 282的presumption of validity不适用於审查委员解读claim上 再审时PTO对claim的解读为与说明书一致的最大合理的范围 说明书中的限制则不必解读进去限缩claim范围 PTO重审时也不需因为专利已获准公告过 而在解读时刻意维持其有效性 因此较容易发出rejection 使专利权人需回应PTO 有可能需修改claim 造成专利reissue或abandoned Ex Parte Reexamination - http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200_2258.htm During reexamination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims (In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In a reexamination proceeding involving claims of an expired patent, claim construction pursuant to the principle set forth by the court in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (words of a claim "are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning" as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention) should be applied since the expired claim are not subject to amendment. The statutory presumption of validity, 35 U.S.C. 282, has no application in reexamination (In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Inter Partes Reexamination - 与Ex Parte Reexamination MPEP 2258同 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2600_2658.htm#sect2658 Rejections on art in reexamination proceedings may only be made on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications, or double patenting. See MPEP § 2258 and § 2258.01 for a discussion of art rejections in reexamination proceedings based on prior art patents or printed publications. The discussion there includes making double patenting rejections and the use of admissions --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.167.205.71