告状之前要三思——一件“专利侵权”案的启示

我国对实用新型专利申请不进行实质审查,因此,有不少不具备新颖性、创造性、实用性的技术也被授予了专利权。所以,当实用新型专利被别人“侵犯”时,专利权人首先要审查一下自己的专利是否坚挺,是否能经得住别人反诉无效,否则就不要象下述案例那样冒然指控别人侵权。     

新颖性创造性审查中如何认定对比文件附图公开的内容

现行专利审查指南规定了在新颖性和创造性审查中,审查员可以引用对比文件的附图,但对于如何认定附图公开的内容却没有给出具体操作方式,在具体的审查实践中,对附图公开内容的认定可能存在不同的认定标准,本文对一件由外观设计视图、发明专利附图公开的内容作为现有技术来评价实用新型专利权利要求的新颖性的实际案例进行了分析,并对新颖性和创造性审查中,对比文件公开内容的认定方式提出了一些建议。     

浅论实用新型的创造性审查

我国对实用新型专利申请实行初步审查制度,在目前的审查范围内,不包括实用新型的创造性审查.为了进一步提高实用新型专利的质量,对其申请进行创造性的审查,是切实可行的一项措施.     

实用新型专利质量提升之路探析

实用新型专利申请数量多年来保持持续稳定增长，但是其专利质量并没有随之提高。国内外业界人士对我国实用新型专利质量存在广泛质疑，如果再不采取有效措施提高实用新型专利质量，无论是对创新主体，还是对实用新型专利制度自身必将带来严重的伤害。通过分析发现我国实用新型专利质量目前存在的主要问题：实用新型专利立法的不完善、实用新型审查制度的缺陷和专利资助政策的错误导向，进而从实用新型专利制度的顶层设计、专利审查制度的完善、专利激励政策的正确制定和专利申请主体的法律规制四方面提出相应提高我国实用新型专利质量的对策。     

从一个案例看实用新型的专利性

专利性,是指发明或者实用新型专利申请是否具备新颖性、创造性和实用性。其判断标准可见于专利法第二十二条。专利性问题是涉及发明或者实用新型专利权利稳定性的核心问题。本文拟从一个实用新型专利的具体案例,看实用新型     

论专利无效宣告中的补证期限

一、案情介绍 A为某压型板抗风卷帘门实用新型专利权人,2002年5月28日B公司以该专利不具备新颖性、创造性和实用性为由,以邮寄方式向专利复审委员会提出无效宣告请求,同时提交了4份证据(证据1-4),专利复审委员会经审查,于2002年7月10日向B公司发出无效受理通知书,2002年8月9日B公司又向专利复     

《专利法》第二十二条应当修改

《中华人民共和国专利法》第40条规定:“专利局收到实用新型和外观设计专利申请后,经初步审查认为符合本法要求的,不再进行实质审查,即行公告,并通知申请人。”这就是说专利局对实用新型和外观设计专利只进行形式审查,不进行实质审查。     

试论发明专利申请公开方式的选择

我国的专利有三种类型:发明专利、实用新型专利和外观设计专利.一项发明创造必须经过法定程序审查后,才能确定是否授予专利权.我国和世界上大多数国家均采用先申请原则,对实用新型、外观设计专利实行形式审查,对发明专利实行早期公开和延迟审查制.即实用新型和外观设计专利申请经过形式审查后,国务院专利行政部门就作出授予或不授予专利权的决定,而对于发明专利申请,不仅要进行形式审查,而且要将其申请文件公开后再进行实质审查,国务院专利行政部门经实质审查后才作出是否授予专利权的决定.根据我国专利法的规定,申请人对发明专利申请文件的公开方式有一定的选择权.本文就申请人怎样选择发明专利申请的公开方式作一探讨.     

对进一步完善实用新型和外观设计专利申请审查程序的探讨

中国专利法及其实施细则对发明专利申请规定了较为严格和严密的审查程序,这是完全必要和正确的。而对实用新型和外观设计专利申请规定的审查程序由于不进行实质审查而出现了不少问题,引起了许多不应有的专利纠纷,增加了专利管理机关、司法机关和专利复审委员会的工作量。中国专利法及其实施细则对实用新型和外观设计规定的审查程序可归纳为初审——公告——异议——授权等程序,一项实用新     

关于外观设计“实用艺术产品”应受著作权保护的问题

我国专利制度中,就发明专利与实用新型专利而言,有了“新颖性”这一前提,基本上可以避免了与任何“在先权”的冲突。这就是说在技术领域中,只要某一技术占了先,它便会无例外地排除相同技术再获专利或保持原专利有效的可能性。但是在工业产权(专利和商标权)与著作权相交叉(乃至相重叠)的外观设计领域,“新颖性”的要求就远远不足以避免外观设计专利与“在先权”的冲突了。我国专     

Software patents in the United States: A balanced approach

This paper tracks the interesting journey of software patents in the United States from both a historic and current standpoint. The U.S patent system has drifted from being strict in the 1970s to being fairly lenient in 1990s and now again strict since 2007. The revolutionizing and famous Bilski case that is redefining the boundaries of software patents is described, and the impact of this Court case on software patents is discussed. The challenges in issuing software patents in terms of proving novelty and non-obviousness are presented in an attempt to bring forward some of the questions in the software patent debate. The uniqueness of software as an invention is analyzed to understand why software should be considered differently compared to other industries. The advantages and disadvantages of software patents are discussed. The paper concludes by providing recommendations and proposing a balanced approach to software patents.     

The Patent Examiner Sweepstakes

This article presents evidence that patent value varies with random examiner assignment at the U.S. Patent Office. Prior work analyzed firm growth as a function of review by “easy” examiners who grant patents at a high rate. The current research looks past whether a patent is granted and instead focuses on how assignment to an “easy” or “hard” examiner influences the attributes of resultant patents. Focusing on their propensities to reject applications on novelty or obviousness grounds, analysis finds that patents issued by lenient examiners tend to be broader in scope, are more valuable to their owners, and elicit a larger stock market response when granted. Further analysis quantifies the level of variation (“noise”) among examiners. This inquiry finds that the noise level in issuing novelty rejections decreases with examiner experience, while variation among examiners issuing obviousness rejections actually increases with experience. A third line of investigation presents evidence that “stricter” examiners disproportionately reach the correct examination relative to more lenient counterparts. This conclusion is supported by “twin application” analysis comparing outcomes of related U.S. and European applications. Consistent with the literature using this method, the European Patent Office's outcome is considered the “gold standard” for examination, and thus, its decision to grant or deny is assumed correct.     

技术在先使用与专利权冲突的探讨

在我国专利法中,仅对外观设计专利,在第23条规定了授予专利权的外观设计不得与他人在先取得的合法权利相冲突,而对发明和实用新型专利没有做出明确规定。这是否意味着对于发明专利和实用新型专利不存在在先权原则制约?如果对此两类专利不存在在先权制约,如何理解适用专利法第63条第2款规定的,在专利申请日前已经制造相同产品、使用相同方法或者已经做好制造、使用的必要准备,并且仅在原有的范围内继续制造、使用的不视为侵犯专利权?不视为侵权的行为属于对专利权的合理使用还是专利权的取得不得损害他人在先权利?不解决上述问题,就无法分清实践中专利技术的在先使用和专利侵权的界限,由此可能导致截然不同的法律后果。以程序法的视角和保护知识产权国际公约协定确立的基本原则为背景,从明确保护专利技术的在先使用权、专利技术在先使用权抗辩专利权的法律适用、专利技术在先使用权的效力地位及保护途径三个方面来探讨解决上述问题。     

专利技术的在先使用问题研究

在我国专利法中 ,仅对外观设计专利 ,第二十三条规定明确了授予专利权的外观设计不得与他人在先取得的合法权利相冲突 ,而对发明和实用新型专利没有做出明确规定。这是否意味着对于发明专利和实用新型专利不存在在先权原则制约 ?如果对此两类专利不存在在先权制约 ,如何理解适用专利法第六十三条第二款规定的 ,在专利申请日前已经制造相同产品、使用相同方法或者已经做好制造、使用的必要准备 ,并且仅在原有的范围内继续制造、使用的不视为侵犯专利权 ?不视为侵权的行为属于对专利权的合理使用还是专利权的取得不得损害他人在先权利 ?不解决上述问题 ,就无法分清实践中专利技术的在先使用和专利侵权的界限 ,由此可能导致截然不同的法律后果。本文作者以程序法的视角和保护知识产权国际公约协定确立的基本原则为背景 ,从明确保护专利技术的在先使用权、专利技术在先使用权抗辩专利权的法律适用、专利技术在先使用权的效力地位及保护途径三个方面来探讨解决上述问题。     

从权利到工具:失效专利管理研究

失效专利是法律效力的丧失而非价值的丧失,通过价值评估及专利挖掘后完全可以将失去法律保护的这项权利转化为有力的工具,对失效专利进行事后管理可挖掘其剩余价值,促进产业进步。本文从失效专利的概念界定、失效原因及管理的必要性三方面出发,系统梳理和总结了学界关于失效专利管理的相关研究文献。研究发现,失效专利的管理主要围绕专利价值评估、专利申请与审查制度等因素展开。但当前研究在界定失效专利的定义及范围上并不统一,未形成明确的专利价值评估体系,也缺乏针对其管理的必要性分析。鉴于此,对失效专利进行管理需遵从以下路径:首先要厘清失效专利的定义并分析其失效原因,其次要总结失效专利管理的必要性及专利失效规律,最后从失效专利原权利人、相关市场企业以及政府部门等多主体视角出发提出管理对策,使失效专利管理秩序化、科学化。     

Licensing versus selling in transactions for exploiting patented technological knowledge assets in the markets for technology

This paper examines the determinants of the types of technology transactions in the markets for technology. On the basis of the relationship between the characteristics of a firm’s patents and the firm’s decision on whether to license out or sell these patented technologies, we empirically analyze the determinants of the decision. We employ interlocked patent data from the representative Korean market for technology, the National Technology Bank, using a bivariate probit regression model in a theoretical framework that includes the option and transaction cost perspectives. Overall, the results show that the relationship between licensing and selling, the major alternatives in technology transactions, is strongly substitutive. The major finding of this study is that firms in markets for technology tend to prefer licensing their patents when uncertainty is low or transaction cost is high, whereas they tend to prefer selling their patents under opposite conditions.     

Patents impediment or expedient to technology transfer

This paper examines the role that patents play in transferring technology. The history of our patent system and the requirements for patentability are reviewed. The option of keeping an invention as a trade secret rather than applying for a patent is presented. The paper also discusses the rationale behind the government’s change in its policy which permits exclusive licensing of public-owned patents. The author concludes that patents are not a barrier but a significant help in promoting technology transfer.     

论专利申请人之现有技术披露义务

问题专利产生了严重的社会后果,提高专利授权质量具有迫切性。高质量的现有技术检索是提高专利授权质量的前提,这在专利申请数量巨大的背景下显得尤为重要。专利申请人及其代理人在专利审查过程中,应向专利审查部门依诚信原则披露其所知悉的、对申请案之可专利性具有关键性价值的参考资料。建立具有法律效力的现有技术披露义务符合专利制度的立法目的和利益平衡原则,节约现有技术检索的社会成本,从而保障专利审查中现有技术检索的质量。我国《专利法》第36条规定了该义务,但没有规定相应的法律后果。我国应通过立法和司法两方面来完善申请人的现有技术披露义务。     

Chinese university patents: quantity,quality, and the role of subsidy programs

Chinese university patenting has gained importance in recent years. Using a comprehensive dataset of university patents by 155 leading Chinese universities from 1991 to 2009, our study pursues two objectives: First, we analyze the quantity and quality of patents filed by leading Chinese universities. Second, we analyze the role of subsidy programs with regard to university patenting in China. With regard to the first objective, our results show that university patents witnessed rapid growth in terms of quantity while patent quality did not increase to a similar degree. Regarding the second objective, we find that a subsidy program to promote research excellence at selected universities is a significant driver of patent quantity and quality. In contrast, a subsidy program that decreases the costs of patent applications seems to enhance patent quantity but not patent quality. We conclude that innovation policies which aim to stimulate patents of higher quality should focus primarily on increasing university R&D, and to a lesser extent on decreasing the costs of university patenting.     

非法实施发明专利入罪的认识误区及克服

加强专利权保护是形势使然。专利权具有无形性、公开性和非竞争性,容易受到侵害。专利民事司法保护存在刚性不足、赔偿数额认定难等局限。专利行政执法对效率的追求造成程序监督弱化。刑法具有制裁手段的严厉性和“二次保障性”特征,遏制专利侵权优势明显。以专利权系私权、专利权具有不确定性、专利案件审理存在技术性难题为由反对非法实施发明专利侵权入罪的主张并不成立。专利刑事立法应当从“权利救济”转向“法益救济”,重构有关专利犯罪客体,增设非法实施发明专利罪,把故意侵犯发明专利且情节严重的行为规定为犯罪。