作者ides13 (鬼)
看板Patent
标题Re: [问题] 美国案的问题
时间Wed Dec 19 00:32:43 2012
关於此问题，还可以再参考2000年的Sandra Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. 的判例
被告也是以专利律师应该是发明人抗辨，但法官认为，
专利律师的任务是帮助发明人取得专利，不能对抗发明人，因
此专利律师不能当作发明人。
Sandra Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. 00-1033:
" An attorney’s professional responsibility is to assist his or her client
in defining her invention to obtain, if possible, a valid patent with maximum
coverage. An attorney performing that role should not be a competitor of the
client, asserting inventorship as a result of representing his client. Cf.
Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure app. R § 10.64 (7th ed.1998) ("Avoiding acquisition of
interest in litigation or proceeding before the [Patent and Trademark]
Office"). Thus, to assert that proper performance of the attorney’s role is
a ground for invalidating the patent constitutes a failure to understand the
proper role of a patent attorney. "
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 118.160.110.164
1F：推 musicfreshma:大推~ 12/19 00:41
2F：→ larksong:谢谢. 以前没注意到这个案例. 12/19 02:19
3F：推 kaikai1112:有学有推 12/19 07:07
4F：推 WAIJEE:推推 12/19 13:16
5F：推 jerico:大推... 12/19 15:34
6F：推 piglauhk:谢i大 12/19 15:57
7F：→ VanDeLord:所以发明人以後丢个IDEA给事务所就可以要求事务所完成该 12/19 16:35
8F：→ VanDeLord:发明,事务所办不到就说事务所没能力? XD 12/19 16:35
9F：→ VanDeLord:is that so? 12/19 16:35
10F：→ VanDeLord:我个人觉得关键字在"defining", "maximum coverage" 12/19 16:37
11F：→ VanDeLord:这与p大所述内容仍有差异 12/19 16:37
12F：→ VanDeLord:发明人是否提供具备3C条件的内容idea才是关键,本案未提 12/19 16:38
13F：推 orsonplus:这系列文的讨论很有趣 都会丢 先解m罗 12/22 09:29