自由公知技术抗辩在专利诉讼中的应用

自由公知技术抗辩与等同侵权二者之间,既有共同之处又有本质区别。其共同之处在于都是以相同的技术或本质上相同的技术作为判断是否构成侵权的判断依据。其不同之处有两点,一是公知技术抗辩只能以申请日或优先权日以前的已有公知技术作为专利     

对在先专利抗辩的理解

从广义上说,在先专利技术属于公知技术的范畴,在先专利抗辩是指:被控侵权行为人以自己使用的技术是在先专利中的技术,或者接近于该在先专利中的技术为由,抗辩专利权人的侵权指控,以最终否定专利侵权指控。目前司法实践中,当被控侵权人提出抗辩所依据的在先专利的公开日早于原告专利的申请日时,一般可以将其纳入公知技术抗辩的范畴。当在先专利的申请日早于原告专利,而公告日在原告专利申请日之后时,在先专利抗辩能否成     

自由公知技术抗辩在专利诉讼中的应用

自由公知技术抗辩与等同侵权二者之间，既有共同之处又有本质区别。其共同之处在于都是以相同的技术或本质上相同的技术作为判断是否构成侵权的判断依据。其不同之处有两点，公知技术抗辩只能以申请日或优先权日以前的已有公知技术作为专利的对比技术，而等同侵权一般是以专利申请日或优先权日以后的技术作为专利的对比技术（有时也会出现以专利申请日或优先权日以前的已有技术作为对比技术，此种情况往往是对已有技术的综合或组合应用，从综合或组合的角度看为新技术，但没有实质性的改进）。二是自由公知技术抗辩的出发点是为了说明所使用…     

已有公知技术抗辩原则在专利侵权诉讼中的运用

已有公知技术抗辩，在法院的专利侵权司法审查中，指被控侵权人提出其被控侵权技术方案系与已有公知技方案完全相同或等同的技术方案，即使被控侵权技术方案入了涉案专利的权利保护范围，也并不构成对涉案专利侵的抗辩原则；而在专利无效审查中，是指专利无效申请人出涉案专利与已有公知技术完全相同或构成等同，从而要宣告该专利无效的抗辩原则。从广义上说，已有公知技术辩原则可以运用于法院的司法审查程序，也可以运用于专复审委员会（下称专利复审委）的无效行政审查程序，而法司法审查程序又包括专利侵权民事诉讼与不服专利复审裁决的…     

关于“公知技术抗辩”若干问题的研究——从中、德、日三国判例与学说的对比角度

本文的法律比较的基本方法对专利侵权诉讼中经常出现的“公知技术抗辩”进行了分析探讨。文章从该类抗辩的概念、法理内涵、适应范围以及相关问题诸方面 ,较为清楚 ,全面地阐释了该抗辩的原理与制度特征 ,并在此基础上得出了作者自己的结论 ,即以专利申请日之前的公知技术进行抗辩是被控侵人当然享有的权利 ,符合诉讼经济原则。     

现有技术抗辩规则若干问题研究——兼评《专利法修正案（草案）》第22条

现有技术抗辩规则在我国专利侵权纠纷司法实践中已经广泛应用，但现有法律文件中却未对此有所提及。《专利法修正案（草案）》第22条对此进行了规定。基于国外经验的借鉴以及专利侵权法律制度完善的要求，《专利法》有确认现有技术抗辩规则的必要。但是，理论与司法实践中对该规则还有所误解。规则所包括的技术应是自由公知技术，规则应仅适用于等同侵权的案件。     

专利存在无效理由时被告的抗辩

1、前言专利侵权诉讼中,被告如果发现专利存在无效理由,可以在侵权诉讼中采取什么样的侵权抗辩?在日本,一直以来,即使是在专利存在无效理由的情况下,实务中仍然是采用如下的权限分配原则1:“既然专利已经被授权,除非有确定的宣告授权无效的决定,否则效力不会当然丧失。通常法院是不能对专利是否适当、是否具有效力进行判断的。被诉专利侵权的被告也必须通过无效宣告决定来使专利无效。”2为此,在日本的专利侵权诉讼中,专利存在无效理由时,被告往往会采用公知技术抗辩说(自由技术的抗辩说)、限定解释说、技术范围不确定说、当然无效说、权利…     

《专利法》第三次修改对专利侵权诉讼的影响

<专利法>第三次修改对专利侵权诉讼的影响主要体现在三大方面:外观设计专利侵权诉讼需要提交专利权评价报告.在确定保护范围时要考虑简要说明,其侵权判定标准会随着授权标准的变化重新确定;规定了现有技术和现有设计抗辩,对于抗辩的适用范围、援引抗辩的技术范围和抗辩成立标准予以明确;增加了"平行进口"和"BOLAR例外",并对侵权赔偿数额的确定做出了调整.     

谁用1300万掀起"小家伙"的"盖头"

~~范围。因此,上诉人提出侵权构成的前提是无效或撤销其中一个专利的主张没有法律依据。其次,上诉人生产的果奶瓶盖,经比对分析,其特征完全覆盖了被上诉人的专利保护范围。上诉人提出的“公知技术抗辩”,因缺乏有效证据支持,且被上诉人的专利已经过国家专利局和专利复审委员会的实质性审查,所以该抗辩不能成立,原审法庭认定上诉人构成侵权正确。关于侵仅赔偿问题,根据我国法律的规定,侵犯专利权的赔偿数额,应按照权利人因被侵权所受到的损失或者侵权人因侵权所获得的利益确定,这是赋予权利人以选择权,其既可以选择按自己的损失计算,也可以选…     

现有技术抗辩中的技术比对若干实务问题

正一、问题的提出2008年通过的《专利法》第三次修正案确立了现有技术抗辩制度,随之而来的是,在专利侵权纠纷中主张现有技术抗辩的案件日益增多。随着司法实践的摸索和积累,现有技术抗辩实务操作上的若干问题也需要不断地加以探讨和总结。现有技术抗辩规则规定在《专利法》第六十二条中:"在专利侵权纠纷中,被控侵权人有证据证明其实施的技术或     

日本专利权当然无效抗辩原则及其启示

当然无效抗辩是指,在专利权侵权民事诉讼中,被告可以直接主张原告专利权＂当然无效＂因而抗辩自己的行为不侵害其专利权。当然无效抗辩具有独立价值,它赋予了法院在个案中认定专利权是否存在无效理由的权力。当然无效抗辩的提出只要具备专利权无效理由这个要件即可,但在除斥期间经过后,被告无权再提出当然无效抗辩,专利权无效审理非适格请求人在专利侵权诉讼中也可以主张当然无效抗辩。由于宪政体制、司法体制等多方面的原因,在暂时尚未具备采纳美国赋予法院最终确认专利权效力做法条件的情况下,作为一个过渡性的措施,在专利权确权机制方面,我国专利法有必要吸纳当然无效抗辩。     

国防专利的特殊性研究——兼谈知识产权保护制度之创新

关于国防专利的特殊性主要围绕权利归属和保密性两个问题展开。在权利归属问题上,有观点认为国防专利的所有权主体只能是国家,这种观点是错误的,依据有关法条和法理基础,国防专利权归属是多元化的。在保密性问题上,确实存在着与一般专利的公开性之间的冲突,这也是采取国防专利这种特殊保护模式的根本原因所在。国防专利是专利制度的一个例外。整个知识产权保护制度也在不断发展和创新,国防专利保护对其他特殊类型的知识产权保护具有一定的借鉴意义。     

Non-voluntary licensing of antivirals under patent: options the Australian Government should consider in light of a potential bird flu pandemic

In the face of a potential bird flu pandemic, Australian Federal Health Minister, Tony Abbott, has recently dismissed expert advice that the government should begin, or even publicly consider, authorising generic manufacturers to produce antivirals, such as Tamiflu and Relenza, under patent via non-voluntary licensing methods. This is despite the fact that the demand for antivirals in Australia, and throughout the world, cannot be met by manufacturers under the control of limited patent owners alone. This article proposes that Australian patent law, which allows for non-voluntary licensing when it comes to important public health issues that affect Australian citizens, is relevant in meeting the demand for increased antiviral treatments during a possible bird flu pandemic, domestically and abroad. It argues that the Australian Government must go beyond what is currently being done and investigate and pursue such options.     

我国医药发明专利试验例外制度研究

医药发明专利试验例外作为我国专利法上一项新生的侵权抗辩事由,在实施中尚缺乏应有的制度保障。通过追溯医药发明专利试验例外的起源和发展,考察主要国家医药发明专利试验例外制度的具体内容,分析了我国医药发明专利试验例外在实施中将面临的困惑,并从适用范围、专利补偿期限、专利链接制度三方面入手,对我国医药发明专利试验例外制度的完善提出了建议,以期能充分实现专利药物制造商与仿制药物制造商、药物制造商与社会公众之间的利益平衡。     

论我国法院判定专利权效力的界限——专利无效判断方式的原则与例外

学界对于专利侵权纠纷与确权纠纷解决“双轨制构造”批评颇多,有关问题的解决思路也争议良多、尚难以达成统一意见。专利法需要改革,但改革离不开理论支撑,不可违背基本法理“自说自话”。学者们尚未足够重视专利权有效性推定对于专利无效判断方式所带来的影响。明晰“双轨制构造”背后存在的法理基础,为专利法改革提供基础理论支持,显得尤为重要。在现有的法理基础上进行专利法改革,法院原则上应充分尊重专利局的确权职能,只有在例外的情况下,也即当然无效的情形下才能直接判定专利权效力。     

A Practical Guide for the Formulation of Propositions in the Bayesian Approach to DNA Evidence Interpretation in an Adversarial Environment

The interpretation of complex DNA profiles is facilitated by a Bayesian approach. This approach requires the development of a pair of propositions: one aligned to the prosecution case and one to the defense case. This note explores the issue of proposition setting in an adversarial environment by a series of examples. A set of guidelines generalize how to formulate propositions when there is a single person of interest and when there are multiple individuals of interest. Additional explanations cover how to handle multiple defense propositions, relatives, and the transition from subsource level to activity level propositions. The propositions depend on case information and the allegations of each of the parties. The prosecution proposition is usually known. The authors suggest that a sensible proposition is selected for the defense that is consistent with their stance, if available, and consistent with a realistic defense if their position is not known.     

Exploring the Patent Explosion

This paper looks more closely at the sources of patent growth in the United States since 1984. It confirms that the increase is largely due to U.S. patenters, with an earlier surge in Asia, and some increase in Europe. Growth has taken place in all technologies, but not in all industries, being concentrated in the electrical, electronics, computing, and scientific instruments industries. It then examines whether these patents are valued by the market. We know from survey evidence that patents in these industries are not usually considered important for appropriability, but are sometimes considered necessary to secure financing for entering the industry. I compare the market value of patents held by entrant firms to those held by incumbents (controlling for R&D). Using data on publicly traded firms 1980--1989, I find that in industries based on electrical and mechanical technologies the market value of entrants' patents is positive in the post-1984 period (after the patenting surge), but not before, when patents were relatively unimportant in these industries. Also, the value of patent rights in complex product industries (where each product relies on many patents held by a number of other firms) is much higher for entrants than incumbents in the post-1984 period. For discrete product industries (where each product relies on only a few patents, and where the importance of patents for appropriability has traditionally been higher), there is no difference between incumbents and entrants.     

专利先行实施权的范围

专利的先行实施权是相对于专利权而独立存在的权利,它虽不构成对专利权的侵害,但应在一定范围内进行,其范围包括行业范围、数量范围、主体范围、客体范围,在范围的确定上,我国有不少争议。确定先行实施权的范围应符合我国国情,参照国外做法,予以适当扩大。     

Patents and enantiomers: Generics v Lundbeck

Legal context: This article examines a decision of the English Patents Courtin relation to the validity of a patent claiming a single enantiomer(a particular molecular form) of a known pharmaceutical compound. Key points: The court held that while it would have been obvious to theskilled person at the priority date to prepare the single enantiomerof the drug claimed in the patent, the actual method of preparationtaught by the patent was not obvious. The attack on groundsof lack of inventive step therefore failed. However, the factthat the patent taught only one method of preparation, but soughtto claim the single enantiomer however prepared meant that theclaims (other than the method claim) were invalid on the groundsof insufficiency. Practical significance: This case demonstrates the formidable difficulties in obtaininga valid patent for a single enantiomer of a known pharmaceutical.While claims to a method of preparation can be valid, providedthe usual requirements of novelty, inventive step, etc. aremet, a patent claiming a single enantiomer of a known compoundper se will be likely to be invalid on the grounds of obviousnessor insufficiency.