Claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents in Amgen v Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmeda District Court decision that Transkaryotic Therapies Inc andAventis Pharmaceuticals Inc infringed Amgen's erythropoietin(EPO) patents; this decision upheld the validity of two of Amgen'sEPO patents and the infringement by Transkaryotic of three patents,including a patent that does not expire until 2015.     

Foreign fame is not enough to confer US trade mark rights

On appeal from the Southern District of New York, the SecondCircuit affirmed the award of summary judgment against ITC'strade mark infringement, unfair competition, and false advertisingclaims under state and federal law, holding that the famousmarks doctrine was not incorporated by Congress into the LanhamAct and thus not a federally protected right.     

University opposition to unfettered research: a new bedfellow for biotech?

This Article examines university opposition to a proposed statutory exemption to infringement liability for basic genetic research and patient care. Gene patenting has allowed patentees to bar basic genetic research, slowing the progress of developing and administering diagnostics and gene-targeting therapeutics. Debates over the merits of gene patents have been heated, most recently leading to an unprecedented invalidation of several broad patents covering all variations and use of two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancers. More important, however (as this ruling was reversed in part), are proposed statutory exemptions to infringement liability. The Department of Health and Human Services' Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS) has promulgated an exemption from liability for infringement that occurs in the course of research. This exemption would promote basic research by granting academic scientists unfettered access to genetic material. The proposal does not alter the patentability of gene sequences; it merely restricts patentees from using infringement threats to stop research. Surprisingly, the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), an organization responsible for promoting development of university research, opposes such an exemption. The AUTM alleges that the exemption would slow research by reducing the incentive for private firms to invest in upstream discoveries made in university laboratories. Yet the exemption would do the opposite: by opening the doors to research relating to any gene segment, a research exemption would accelerate basic research. Moreover, it would not affect collaboration with private industry: where there is potential to commercialize basic research, biomedical companies would continue to license the rights to university discoveries. Thus, the AUTM's motivations in opposing the proposed research exemption are suspect. They appear to reflect either a misunderstanding of the purpose behind granting property rights to publicly funded university research, or an improper alignment with industry goals.     

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.

商标侵权中销售商品行为的定性

《商标法》将商标使用侵权限定于生产领域,并将销售商品行为作为单独的一类侵权行为,这种做法导致了学界关于销售商品行为究竟属于直接侵权还是间接侵权的争议。应以商标禁止权为基础确定商标权专有权的范围,同时应以商标使用作为区分直接侵权和间接侵权的标准。因此,销售商品行为本应属于商标的使用行为,本质上应属于直接侵权。上述将销售商品行为排除于商标使用行为之外的做法,造成了商标侵权类型体系乃至商标权利体系的紊乱,进而导致了若干商标立法、司法和理论上的混乱状况。为此,应当还原销售商品行为的商标使用本性。     

Enforcement through eBay's VeRO scheme may be a groundless threat

On an interim injunction application to restrain an allegedthreat of infringement proceedings, the High Court held thatthe submission of an enforcement request through eBay's VerifiedRights Owner (VeRO) Program could constitute a groundless threatof infringement proceedings of a registered Community Design;the Court was concerned at the ability of a rights owner touse the VeRO program to ‘snuff out an avenue of the claimant'sbusiness’ where the proprietor of the designs in questionhad no intention of commencing proceedings in which the issuesof infringement and validity would be determined.     

我国专利间接侵权的困境及立法建议

为保护专利权人的合法利益,适应经济生活的客观需求,我国应对专利间接侵权做出明确规定,而不宜适用共同侵权规则。侵权责任法作为民事权利保护的基本法,对间接侵权应该有一个抽象概括的规定,以使专利法等法律规定的间接侵权有一个上位法的依据。而且,专利法对专利间接侵权的构成要件也应做出详细规定,以区别于专利直接侵权和专利共同侵权。     

浅谈网络著作权侵权案件的地域管辖

网络在带给人们方便的同时也带来了一系列的法律问题,网络著作权侵权案件地域管辖的确定便是其中之一。网络所建构的虚拟空间突破了实体地域与国界的限制,当网络著作权侵权行为发生时,以地域为基础的传统管辖权理论与规定似乎无法圆满解决网络侵权案件管辖权争议,因此当侵权行为人利用网络实施侵权行为引发诉讼时,判断侵权案件地域管辖即成为一个现实的问题。本文分析了网络著作权侵权的一般性问题、我国现行法律关于网络著作权侵权案件地域管辖相关的规定及网络著作权侵权案件地域管辖确定的标准。     

论药害侵权及其民事救济理论与制度

药害侵权是一种特殊的产品侵权。严格责任作为一种特殊产品侵权的归责原则已经发展成为药害侵权的基本归责原则。药害事故的频繁发生带来了民事诉讼方面的变化，因果关系推定、举证责任倒置以及集团诉讼地位的提升成为药害侵权诉讼的主要特征。当前，我国药害侵权民事救济立法与司法过程中还存在一些问题,需要采取相应措施逐步加以完善。     

Is tobacco a drug? Administrative agencies as common law courts

Professor Cass Sunstein argues that the FDA has the authority to regulate tobacco products. He considers the text of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which supports the FDA assertion, and the context of its enactment, which argues against the FDA. He resolves the tension between text and context in favor of FDA jurisdiction by turning to the emerging role of administrative agencies. In modern government, he contends, administrative agencies have become America's common law courts, with the power to adapt statutory regimes to new facts and new values when the underlying statute is ambiguous. Professor Sunstein's Article, like the other pieces in this volume, was written after the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina decided Coyne Beahm v. FDA, but before a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that decision in Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FDA. In Coyne Beahm, the District Court held that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act authorized the FDA to regulate tobacco products, but not tobacco advertising. The Fourth Circuit rejected the District Court's jurisdictional ruling and invalidated the FDA's regulations in their entirety. The Clinton Administration has since requested an en banc rehearing before the Fourth Circuit.     

Twitter thou doeth?

Twitter, which started as a micro-blogging website, is the third most popular social network next to Facebook and My Space. Twitter is increasingly becoming primary means of communication among individuals and businesses. It is now being used in courts for issuing injunctions. However, Twitter “tweets” are also potential litigation minefield for lawyers, businesses and employers. As a social-networking tool, the use of Twitter can raise a variety of legal issues such as the right of publicity, breach of confidentiality, privacy infringement, fraud trademark infringement, copyright infringement, reverse username hijacking, among others.     

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。     

环境侵权行为之界定

环境侵权行为是随着环境问题的出现而产生的,是一种特殊侵权行为,其具有不同于一般侵权行为的特征,如行为主体的不平等性;行为方式的间接性;行为过程的缓慢性以及行为后果的公害性。环境侵权行为侵害的对象主要是公民的环境权,而且违法性不是环境侵权民事责任的必要条件。     

公物致害责任与建筑物危险责任比较研究

与物有关的侵权,根据损害结果与物的危险性之间的关系,可以分为物之侵权、物上行为侵权和单纯行为侵权三类。其中物之侵权根据公物和私物在公共使用性上的根本差异,可以区分为公物侵权和私物侵权,公物侵权构成公物致害责任,而私物侵权中不动产侵权构成建筑物危险责任。公物致害责任与建筑物危险责任既存在相似性,又存在差异性,其差异性本质...     

突发事件应对中的最大保护原则——以公开劫持人质事件处置为例

突发事件应对措施的设定和实施,特别是在以公开劫持人质事件处置为例的社会安全事件处置中,面临着谨守最小侵害原则或强调最大保护原则的选择难题。《突发事件应对法》第11条第1款所规定的最大保护原则是在谨守最小侵害原则无法回应实践需求的情况下,对措施妥当性提出的更高标准。突发事件应对措施本身的实质合法性调低对侵害性的要求,遵循侵害与危害相适应的原则。但是,最小侵害原则仍然在特定的情境下适用。突发事件应对中对最大保护原则的适用需要受到动态评估和检视,同时需要与最小侵害原则、侵害相当原则结合评价措施本身的实质合法性,此外还应受到均衡原则的平衡和制约。这一原则,规范突发事件应对措施的具体实施,在制定应急处置预案或者设定具体措施及其裁量基准时也应得到遵循。     

3D打印冲击下专利间接侵权制度研究

近20多年来,3D打印技术的迅猛发展及其打印成本的不断下降,使其渐渐开始融入到人们的日常生活之中。在网络时代背景下,3D数据文件作为侵权客体的"关键部件",能够通过网络共享迅速地传播,将给现有的专利侵权制度带来一场变革。3D打印模式下专利侵权呈现出"版权化"趋势,使现有专利侵权制度中共同侵权的实用性严重"萎缩",而借鉴帮助侵权、代位侵权也并非长远之计。所以,面对专利侵权"新模式",归根结底还是专利间接侵权制度的构建问题。与此同时,借鉴美国《数字千年版权法》也是应对冲击的策略之一。     

Article 81 is a defence to a plea of trade mark infringement

The Court of Appeal in Sportswear considered the interactionbetween the EU principle of free movement of goods and respectfor trade marks rights. In overturning the decision of Mr JusticeWarren to strike out an Article 81 defence to trade mark infringement,the court found that there was a sufficient nexus between theArticle 81 defence and the trade mark infringement claim.     

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。     

网络链接与我国信息网络传播权保护之辨析

网络链接是万维网的核心技术 ,是互联网信息交互与传播的重要手段 ,但同时也构成对信息网络传播权的威胁。不同链接具有不同的表现形式 ,链接技术本身不构成侵权不等于网链行为不构成侵权。网上关键词组组合、搜索引擎使用、未经著作权人同意的链接及链接有协议的侵权作品是否构成侵权诸方面问题 ,应结合中外典型案例进行探析 ,正确处理网络链接与信息网络传播权司法保护之间的关系 ,以完善相关法律     

自己注册商标侵权抗辩研究

商标使用的动态性、商标注册审查制度的必然漏洞、信赖保护原则和禁止重复诉讼原则是自己注册商标侵权抗辩的正当性理由,欧盟和日本相关立法佐证了自己注册商标侵权抗辩的合理性和可行性。自己注册商标侵权抗辩制度之目的是维持注册取得商标权和商标集中授权制度的稳定性并避免注册商标成为商标侵权的工具。自己注册商标侵权抗辩的构成条件包括注册商标与他人的注册商标存在冲突、用以进行侵权抗辩的注册商标有效且属于善意注册或虽非善意但已超过商标法规定的无效宣告期限、注册商标在被控侵权之前已实际使用并有一定影响、注册商标善意使用且使用方式符合商业习惯。注册商标侵权抗辩包括对损害赔偿责任和停止侵害责任的抗辩,在后商标的注册时间及冲突商标的使用状况将影响注册商标侵权抗辩的成立。对于无法被宣告无效或撤销且正常使用的注册商标可以通过附加区别标志来减轻消费者混淆的可能性。