反向等同原则——美国专利字面侵权抗辩的利器

从司法实践上对电子、纳米等新兴技术领域的专利侵权纠纷进行分析,特别是以美国联邦巡回上诉法院对Texas Instruments案的裁决为例,辨析了专利权利要求的解释、字面(表面)侵权、等同原则以及反向等同原则和技术可实施性对字面侵权的限制,并建议可以在司法实践中更多地适用反向等同原则.     

专利权利要求中的艰制解释

根据《专利法》第56条第1款的规定：发明或者实用新型的保护范围以其权利要求的内容为准．说明书和附图可以用于解释权利。换言之，专利的保护范围是通过对权利要求解释后形成的．其保护范围不以权利要求的文字为准，而以权利要求的内容为准。在确定专利权的保护范围时，既不能将专利权保护范围仅限于权利要求书严格的字面含义上，     

论《专利法》第三次修改对专利实质条件体系的完善

<专利法>第三次修改,使专利实质条件体系更加科学与合理.一方面,第一次在<专利法>中定义了现有技术概念,并以现有技术概念定义新颖性和创造性等相关概念.同时,把国外的非出版公开的内容,列入了现有技术的范围,提高了专利授权的标准.另一方面,把专利类型的定义也放进了<专利法>中.但<专利法>还应在创造性、宽限期定义等方面进一步完善.     

论专利法中的“本领域普通技术人员”

“本领域普通技术人员”是以法律拟制形式出现的典型抽象概念，该概念贯穿专利的整个生命周期。对于专利权利束中的许多实体性权利的存续和实施，“本领域普通技术人员”身肩重任。专利法实践中的许多难点问题，都与其的适用紧密相关。结合“本领域普通技术人员”概念的功能、沿革，对我国专利法立法、司法实践中该概念的应有地位和存在的主要问题进行了讨论，并提出了相关建议。     

对假冒专利罪的澄清

《专利法》对假冒他人专利行为与侵犯专利实施权的行为作了严格区分 ,然而有关假冒专利罪的刑法学通说割裂了《刑法》与《专利法》之间的联系 ,混淆了假冒他人专利行为与侵犯专利实施权的行为的界线 ,从而得出了错误的结论。对假冒专利罪应当采用系统解释方法 ,根据假冒他人专利行为在《专利法》中的固有含义予以解释。     

浅议我国专利间接侵权法律制度

在各国的知识产权理论和实务中,间接侵权行为都被认为是专利法中最棘手的问题之一。本文对专利间接侵权的概念和构成要件等问题进行了探讨,并提出了完善的建议。     

论专利制度的正当性

塞尔登和怀特兄弟两位发明人的专利旧案表明,由于专利制度成本的存在,任何专利理论都必须澄清专利制度究竟带来了何种社会收益。以成本/收益的权衡模式为基础,最经典的激励理论和对价理论对专利制度的论说都不符合发明的本质,也难以解释专利法实践。不同专利理论的政策共识是激励创新,但它们均忽视了创新实践及其范式变迁。依创新范式理论,专利制度在发明、发明商业化和技术扩散等创新过程中均发挥重要的作用,而加速技术扩散不仅是社会从专利制度中获得的收益,更是为开放式创新、用户创新和累积性创新范式所必须。技术扩散在本质上是信息的传播,它的载体是专利文献。对于发展中国家而言,应该强化专利公开充分性条件,以促进技术创新的扩散。     

美国专利法及专利审查信息的合理借鉴

美国专利法中,先发明制度等专利审查程序、专利法的实质性条款等与我国专利法的相关规定有诸多不同,而美国科技和专利的高度繁荣、美国专利局强大的检索程序以及英语母语的使用,使了解及合理借鉴美国专利法及美国的专利审查信息对于我国专利发展很有必要。     

专利无效决定追溯力的最新发展

结合最高人民法院最新作出的判例,阐述其对《专利法》第47条中＂宣告专利权无效前＂和＂已执行＂两概念的最新解释,分析最高人民法院针对宣告专利权无效的决定对人民法院作出并已执行的专利侵权的判决、裁定效力的追溯力的最新观点。     

专利复审委员会的诉讼地位——复审委是否该站在专利无效诉讼被告席上？

专利复审委员会成为专利无效行政诉讼被告是我国专利立法尚不成熟、相关理论研究亦不深入的产物.此一问题在专利法修改前即已存在,专利法修改后更显突出.在专利无效诉讼中,表面看来似乎是当事人对于专利复审委员会的决定不服,实质问题则是无效请求人与权利人因专利有效性所起争执,如其中一方起诉,则应以对方为被告,如此既可促使被告积极参与诉讼,也可避免专利复审委员会的角色错位问题.这不仅是理论上的必然结论,也是各国的通行做法.     

Reiterating the Literal

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique - Taking the letter of the law literally would equal the death of our hopeand expectation that law...     

论刑法规范的文义解释

近代以来刑法标榜罪刑法定原则以弘扬刑法的人权保障机能，并将刑法条文的明确性作为这一原则的基本内容。明确性原则要求对刑法规范关于犯罪的描述必须明确，使人能准确地划分罪与非罪的界限，以发挥刑法规范的指引作用，同时约束司法权行使的范围和干涉力度。但是正如语言本身即是模糊的、变……     

由直译意译引发的思考

直译和意译之争由来已久。有人认为应以直译为主,也有人认为应以意译为主。其实,单纯地谈直译、意译之争是没有多大意义的。更多的需要结合翻译定义、翻译标准、译者目的、译者修养、译者所处时代特征等。新时期,翻译的文化因素受到越来越多的关注。西方学者首先提出的异化、归化概念在新时期的中国发生了变化。直译与意译相结合的方法不失为处理翻译的好方法。贝尔的翻译观(即"概念匣子"理论),让人注意到直译与意译都不是万能的。     

The Georgia State Litigation: Literal Copying in Education

This case note examines the long‐standing litigation against Georgia State University in relation to the posting, by faculty and library staff, of unauthorised copies of book extracts on the University's electronic reserves and virtual learning environment. The central question in this litigation has been whether these acts of copying fall within the fair use doctrine in US copyright law. In answering this, a key question for the US courts – and one relevant to other jurisdictions with free exceptions for education, such as the UK – has been whether existing and potential licensing activity is relevant to the question of whether an exception applies. This case note discusses how market effect has been analysed in Georgia State, including the recent rejection by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of a strongly empirical approach to market harm.     

文义解释的司法操作技术规则

经过长期的法学理论阐发与司法实践尝试和检验,逐步形成了一系列指引和规范文义解释司法运用的操作技术规则,主要包括语法规则、语义学规则、概括性法律用语规则.通过运用一系列以明晰的规则表达的文义解释操作技术,法律文本的意义模糊问题得以消解,有助于提高司法裁判质量,维护司法正义.文义解释规则化操作表征着,实体正义恰以形式正义为前提条件而获保障.     

专利相同侵权下现有技术抗辩制度反思

从现有技术抗辩制度的历史发展趋势看，它不再构成对相同侵权的抗辩事由。我国《专利法》第62条将现有技术抗辩扩展到相同侵权，不符合现有技术抗辩作为权利抗辩的性质，加重了专利权人在侵权诉讼中的证明责任，提高了制度运行成本，违反专利推定有效原则，对其科学性有必要加以反思。     

Linguistic Objectivity in Norm Sentences: Alternatives in Literal Meaning

Assuming that legal science, specifically with regard to interpretation, has to provide the tools to reduce the uncertainty of legal solutions arising from the use of natural languages by legal orders, it becomes a central matter to identify, in this limited domain, the spectrum of semantic variation (and its boundaries) that language brings to the definition of a norm expressed by a norm sentence. It is in this framework that the present paper, analyzing norm sentences as a specific kind of speech act, examines the relation of the legal order to natural language rules, the limits of linguistic uncertainty, and alternatives of meaning as distinct possibilities of norms covered by the text (that are, because of this, still within what literal meaning is). Considering interpretation just as the linguistic decoding process, the reverse of the process of creating norm sentences, the paper also argues that subjects not connected with the relation between norm sentences and norms (mainly, normative defeasibility) are analytically distinct and should be removed from the field of language.     

论《监狱法》文字表述的修改与完善

《监狱法》存在一些文字表述方面的问题,其中既包括一些章的名称,也包括一些其他的文字表述,此类问题的存在影响了该法的立法质量,需要修改和完善。     

Literal Meaning: Semantics and Narrative in Biblical Law and Modern Jurisprudence

The modern conception of the ``Rule of Law'' entails government bylaw not men, and takes law to consist in rules known in advance. Thislatter characteristic assumes that, for the most part, the meaningof such rules is unproblematic (Hart's ``core of settled meaning''), this usually being understood as a function of ``literal meaning''.A quite different model exists in the Bible: the early rules display``oral residue'', and their meaning, I argue, is constructed in``narrative'' rather than ``semantic'' terms: instead of asking:``what situations do the words of this rule cover?'', we shouldinquire: ``what typical situations do the words of this rule evoke?''.Moreover, courtroom adjudication was not the norm, and its originalform was not based upon the application of written rules but ratherupon judicial discretion taken to have been divinely inspired. Isuggest that modern jurisprudence still retains traces of such earlierconceptions, in its account of modern law: despite their differences, both Hart and Fuller make use of narrative constructions of meaning,and Kelsen ultimately prefers the authority of the judge to the correctness of the rule he purports to apply.