'Tangential Relation' criterion clears way for infringement of amended patent claim under doctrine of equivalents

Prosecution history estoppel generally bars patent infringementunder the doctrine of equivalents when a claim is narrowed byamendment during examination, but the ‘tangential relation’criterion preserves that doctrine when the claim is narrowedin a manner unrelated to the particular equivalent which, itis alleged, infringes the patent.     

论专利侵权判定中等同原则的完善

专利是推动社会进步、经济发展的重要制度保证.依法保护专利权、制裁侵犯专利权的行为,首要和关键的问题就在于对是否为专利侵权进行判定."等同原则"是专利侵权判定的一项重要原则.然而,该原则的合理适用被中外专利、司法界喻为"专利诉讼中最富挑战性的难题",对"等同"的认定产生偏差将导致该原则在适用中标准不统一,严重影响司法的社会效果和司法的统一性.即力图对等同原则这一在国内外专利侵权判定中长期争论的问题再作一思考,以期对等同原则的科学适用和进一步完善进行一些有益的探讨.     

Claim construction and the extent of patent protection: A comparative analysis of the Phillips en banc Federal Circuit decision

Legal context. The United Kingdom's House of Loads in Kirin-Amgenand the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitin Phillips addressed similar issues with respect to the methodologyof claim interpretation and the fundamental rules and policiesfor determining the extent of patent protection. This articlewill review Phillips and Kirin-Amgen from the comparative lawperspective. It will compare the UK and US rules and patentpolicies with their German and Japanese counterparts, discussingthe bases for these differences and examining them from theperspective of patent policies, specifically with respect tofair protection and legal certainty. Key points. Despite the use of the same rule and methodology,legal commentators and patent professionals emphasize the differencesin the extent of patent protection in different jurisdictions.Such differences result from the availability of the doctrineof equivalents. For jurisdictions such as the UK, the US andJapan, where courts seldom apply the doctrine of equivalents,the differences result from the way in which the courts conductclaim construction. These courts use the perspective of a hypotheticalperson to support a broad or narrow claim construction, reflectingthe weight given to the competing patent policies. Practical significance. This article cites key cases for claimconstruction and the doctrine of equivalents in four major patentjurisdictions: the UK, the US, Germany and Japan. Knowledgeof the case law trends in these jurisdictions is essential fordrafting patents documents and enforcing patents.     

Patent first, ask questions later: morality and biotechnology in patent law

This Article explores the U.S. "patent first, ask questions later" approach to determining what subject matter should receive patent protection. Under this approach, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or the Agency) issues patents on "anything under the sun made by man," and to the extent a patent's subject matter is sufficiently controversial, Congress acts retrospectively in assessing whether patents should issue on such interventions. This practice has important ramifications for morally controversial biotechnology patents specifically, and for American society generally. For many years a judicially created "moral utility" doctrine served as a type of gatekeeper of patent subject matter eligibility. The doctrine allowed both the USTPO and courts to deny patents on morally controversial subject matter under the fiction that such inventions were not "useful." The gate, however, is currently untended. A combination of the demise of the moral utility doctrine, along with expansive judicial interpretations of the scope of patent-eligible subject matter, has resulted in virtually no basis on which the USTPO or courts can deny patent protection to morally controversial, but otherwise patentable, subject matter. This is so despite position statements by the Agency to the contrary. Biotechnology is an area in which many morally controversial inventions are generated. Congress has been in react-mode following the issuance of a stream of morally controversial biotech patents, including patents on transgenic animals, surgical methods, and methods of cloning humans. With no statutory limits on patent eligibility, and with myriad concerns complicating congressional action following a patent's issuance, it is not Congress, the representative of the people, determining patent eligibility. Instead, it is patent applicants, scientific inventors, who are deciding matters of high public policy through the contents of the applications they file with the USTPO. This Article explores how the United States has come to be in this position, exposes latent problems with the "patent first" approach, and considers the benefits and disadvantages of the "ask questions first, patents later" approaches employed by some other countries. The Article concludes that granting patents on morally controversial biotech subject matter and then asking whether such inventions should be patentable is bad policy for the United States and its patent system, and posits workable, proactive ways for Congress to successfully guard the patent-eligibility gate.     

A primer on US antitrust claims against patentees under Walker Process

Legal context: In the wake of two recent cases from the Federal Circuit onthe subject, this article provides an introduction to the WalkerProcess doctrine under US law. Under the doctrine, a patenteewho knowingly enforces a patent procured by intentional fraudon the patent office may lose its immunity to antitrust claims,should it act to enforce its patent. Key points: Walker Process fraud refers to a knowing and deliberate fraudperpetrated on the patent office as opposed to mere acts ofinequitable conduct. Proving that a patent applicant engagedin Walker Process fraud does not by itself prove liability foran antitrust violation. The accused infringer must still provethe individual elements of an antitrust claim. Antitrust claimsbased on Walker Process fraud require significant time and resourcesto litigate. Practical significance: With the allure of mandatory treble damages and attorney's fees,antitrust claims based on Walker Process fraud can serve asa potent counterclaim for an accused infringer's arsenal. Butthe legal requirements and resources needed to successfullylitigate these claims to a conclusion may temper their effectivenessfor the typical patent-infringement suit.     

物权请求权与消灭时效

法学理论关于物权请求权的性质有物权说、债权说和独立请求权说。债权说的物权请求权的性质定位,不仅符合法律关系或权利类型的模式化法典建构需要,而且也为消灭时效制度的适用找到了法学依据,同时也为完善立法提供了方法上的指导。     

论网络空间自卫权的行使对象问题

网络攻击往往由非国家行为体发起,实践中亦罕见有国家主动承认对网络攻击负责的实例。相应地,由于网络攻击的溯源存在技术、政治和法律方面的难题,受害国很难在传统自卫权的框架下对来自他国的网络攻击行使自卫权。非国家行为体尚不能构成传统武力攻击情境下的自卫权行使对象,更不宜成为网络空间自卫权的行使对象。作为替代,近年来将"不能够或不愿意"理论适用于网络空间自卫权的主张"甚嚣尘上"。"不能够或不愿意"理论表面上具有一定的正当性,但从既有国家归因标准和常规的自卫必要性的角度来看,该理论本质上缺乏实然法层面的法律依据,而且在适用时将面临一系列的法律不确定性。中国在参与网络空间国际造法的进程中,应当警惕将非国家行为体作为网络空间自卫权行使对象的主张,并应努力防止"不能够或不愿意"理论的引入和滥用,以遏制网络空间的军事化。     

Application of the Essential Facilities Doctrine to Liquefied Natural Gas Regasification Terminals: An Analysis through a Chilean Case

This article analyzes relevant issues that shall be considered in a claim requiring the application of the essential facilities doctrine of antitrust law to a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal, through the analysis of a Chilean case. For this purpose, the research draws some significant lessons from the judgments of U.S. courts—which initially developed such theory—and identifies the conditions that have to be met according to the Chilean Competition Tribunal for the application of the essential facilities doctrine.     

民法上支配权与请求权的不同逻辑构成——兼论人格权请求权之独立性

请求权是特定人之间的法律关系在逻辑上的必然安排。救济关系系在特定人之间展开,所以救济权必然表现为一种请求权。救济权这一性质的确立,标志着民事责任制度由公法向私法的回归。救济权分为退出式请求与割让式请求,因而包括人格权在内的支配权保护之立法,存在着两种抽象方式：一种是以“救济权的性质”为抽象的方式,导致支配权请求权在法律制度上的独立;另一种是以"救济权的内容"为抽象方式,导致支配权请求权存在于侵权责任制度之中,从而丧失独立性。在后一种立法模式之下,支配权请求权的概念和理论上的独立性以及由此产生的逻辑关系和规则原理,在统一的侵权责任制度下仍应有所体现。     

专利侵权损害赔偿的要件及其举证责任——以《侵权责任法》为切入点

专利侵权领域的证明责任分配已成为学界和实务的焦点和难点之一,专利侵权损害赔偿诉讼举证责任的整体研究并不多见。要产生专利侵权损害赔偿请求权,至少须满足侵权人的过错、侵害专利权的事实、损害事实、因果关系四个要件。在举证责任分配上,原告应当对创设请求权基础的法律规范的事实要件承担证明责任,而被告对权利妨碍、权利消灭和权利受制规范的事实要件承担证明责任。专利侵权损害赔偿请求权各构成要件事实的证明,应根据专利权及专利侵权的特点,依据《专利法》等实体法的规定具体确定。     

论专利侵权赔偿损失的归责原则

专利授权公告不应具有使公众应知的法律效力。专利侵权赔偿适用一般过错推定说对行为人显失公平,专利侵权纠纷中也不存在特殊过错推定说的法定事由。因此,过错推定责任原则不能作为专利侵权赔偿损失的一般归责原则。专利侵权属于一种特殊侵权,在归责上不应适用过错责任原则。我国应基于无过错责任原则的宗旨、专利权的排他权性及专利侵权判定的复杂性,并借鉴国际公约和国外立法例,区分专利侵权产品首次销售前后的不同侵权行为,分别适用无过错责任原则或过错推定责任原则。     

Three Conceptual Problems with the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise

This article dissects the Tadi court's argument for findingthe doctrine of joint criminal enterprise in the ICTY Statute.The key arguments are identified and each are found to be eitherproblematic or insufficient to deduce the doctrine from thestatute: the object and purpose of the statute to punish majorwar criminals, the inherently collective nature of war crimesand genocide and the conviction of war criminals for joint enterprisesin World War II cases. The author criticizes this over-relianceon international case law and the insufficient attention tothe language of criminal statutes when interpreting conspiracydoctrines. The result of these mistakes is a doctrine of jointcriminal enterprise that fails to offer a sufficiently nuancedtreatment of intentionality, foreseeability and culpability.Specifically, the doctrine in its current form suffers fromthree conceptual deficiencies: (1) the mistaken attributionof criminal liability for contributors who do not intend tofurther the criminal purpose of the enterprise, (2) the impositionof criminal liability for the foreseeable acts of one's co-conspiratorsand (3) the mistaken claim that all members of a joint enterpriseare equally culpable for the actions of its members. The authorconcludes by briefly suggesting amendments to the Rome Statuteto rectify these deficiencies.     

政治问题理论的衰落与重构

政治问题作为可推翻的"自然推定",属于可诉性理论的阻却事由要件。其理论发轫于联邦党人对宪法"特定条款"的阐述。为了应对将政治问题理论区分为经典形式与审慎形式所带来的司法操作性难题,布伦南大法官通过描述政治问题的六个特征,构建了政治问题的确认标准。然而,法院在适用政治问题确认标准的过程中所形成的政治问题理论的循环悖论,以及学界对政治问题理论存在合理性的质疑使得其经典形式出现变异、审慎形式日渐消亡。在激励相容理论基础上重构政治问题理论,可以尝试化解学界对政治问题免于司法审查理论基础的种种非议。     

知识产权变动登记效力模式探析——以专利权为例

专利权作为绝对权,在变动过程中关涉不特定多数人利益,因此其在变动中的公示方式及其效力模式的选择至关重要。通过分析,在我国现行法律体系下,专利权变动宜采登记证明主义和登记生效主义,但在应然层面上,或许采登记证明主义和登记对抗主义更为合适。专利权变动登记模式可以适用于整个知识产权。     

试论方法特征限定的产品权利要求的撰写形式与保护范围

方法特征限定的产品权利要求是指产品权利要求的技术方案部分或者全部由方法特征进行限定。对于这类权利要求,各国对于其可专利性存在不同的规定;对于方法特征对整个权利要求的保护范围所产生的影响也存在不同看法;在专利侵权诉讼中应当如何分配举证责任也存在不同的做法。通过研究目前国际上的各种相关规定,对于方法特征限定的产品权利要求进行理论和实践上的分析,尝试提出解决上述问题的方法。     

对“客观真实观”的几点批判

"客观真实说"尽管确实有一定的合理性,但它仅仅将刑事审判看做一种认识活动,抹杀了诉讼中的认识活动与哲学家、历史学家、自然科学家视野下的认识活动之间的界限,并且将这种以"重构已然事件"为目标的认识活动绝对化,不仅不符合认识的发展规律,也排除了人的主观性以及其他诉讼价值存在的可能性.因而,"客观真实说"的缺陷是极其明显的.相比而言,"法律真实说"能够较为恰当地表述刑事审判所认定事实的准确性程度,符合刑事审判的性质,能合理地解决实体公正价值与程序公正价值之间的冲突.尤其是,"法律真实说"具有可操作性,符合认识发展的规律.     

中药复方专利侵权诉讼中公知技术抗辩研究——兼评“天士力诉万成侵犯专利权”案

公知技术抗辩是专利侵权诉讼中被告保护自己利益的有效手段。用以抗辩的公知技术是指专利申请日之前已有的、处于公知状态的技术,但不必是可自由使用的技术。公知技术抗辩是否成立的判断应采用"二者比较创造说"。在既符合等同侵权又存在公知技术抗辩的情况下,应当优先适用公知技术抗辩。     

Paint It Black: Rhode Island Supreme Court Rejects Lead Paint Nuisance Suit

During the past decade, state and local governments have increasingly brought suits to redress harm caused by products, including cigarettes, firearms, and toxins such as asbestos, lead paint, and even greenhouse gases, based not on the products liability or negligence theories conventionally applied, but on the public nuisance doctrine. Although the public nuisance doctrine potentially offers governmental plaintiffs more lenient standards with respect to issues like product and manufacturer identification, control of the product, proximate cause, and application of statutes of limitation, while limiting manufacturers' defenses, and has generated insurance claims and pressure to enter settlements, nearly all applications of public nuisance law to products claims have ultimately failed when heard by the courts on the merits. In February 2007, however, a Rhode Island trial court, in a groundbreaking decision, entered a judgment on a jury verdict imposing liability on three lead pigment manufacturers for creating a public nuisance, and ordered them to abate the nuisance in Rhode Island at a cost estimated to exceed two billion dollars.

On July 1, 2008, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment against the lead paint manufacturers and held that the state attorney general's complaint should have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The state had not, and could not, allege facts sufficient to support a public nuisance claim, as the doctrine was construed in Rhode Island or nationally. Relief from the serious harms caused by lead paint was available only through specific Rhode Island legislation and products liability law, not the public nuisance doctrine. The Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision is consistent with recent decisions from other state courts, most notably opinions issued by the highest courts of New Jersey and Missouri during 2007, and has already influenced other public nuisance plaintiffs to abandon their lead paint suits.     

修理、更换、回收利用是否构成专利权侵害

对专利产品进行修理、零部件更换或者回收利用是否构成专利权侵害，必须以专利权利要求保护的范围作为最基本的判断标准；即使对专利产品进行修理、零部件更换或者回收利用构成再造，也并不必然侵害专利权；在处理对专利产品进行修理、零部件更换或者回收利用是否专利权侵害的问题时，关键是处理好以生产经营为目的提供零部件的行为是否构成专利权间接侵害。     

Settlement during patent litigation trials. An empirical analysis for Germany

Settlement in patent litigation suits is a frequently observed phenomenon. Even though parties have the opportunity of achieving an agreement at the first negotiation round they often reach one during trial. Game theoretic models suggest that additional or differently evaluated information may trigger settlement after a first bargaining round. This paper investigates settlement decisions in patent infringement suits for Germany. Based on a data set of 824 patents involved in infringement suits in Germany during 1993 and 1995 I find legal differences between the District Courts to have a significant impact on the settlement rates during trial. The results also reveal it is only in later stages of the trial that invalidity suits as a means of defense have a positive impact on the probability of settlement. Prior opposition to the litigated patent, however, always has a negative impact on settlement probability. Contrary to results for the US the adoption of the prevailing or not at the first instance has no effect on the settlement decision at the second instance.