Patent Production at a European Research University: Exploratory Evidence at the Laboratory Level

Most studies of academic patenting focus on the university as the unit of analysis. In contrast, we examine this phenomenon at the laboratory level. Based on a sample of 83 research laboratories of Louis Pasteur University (ULP, Strasbourg, France) from 1993 to 2000, we constructed a panel data set that allows us to discriminate between patents that are owned by the university and those that are owned by firms and other organizations but invented by faculty members. We use these data to estimate a patent production function and find that university-owned patents are more responsive to specific public funding, while non-university-owned patents are more responsive to industrial funding. Our results also highlight the importance to control for disciplinary and institutional differences, since they significantly affect the production of the different kinds of ULP patents.     

Ideation and Appropriation: Wittgenstein on Intellectual Property

This paper provides a critique of the contemporary notion of intellectual property based on the consequences of Wittgenstein's “private language argument”. The reticence commonly felt toward recent applications of patent law, e.g., sports moves, is held to expose erroneous metaphysical assumptions inherent in the spirit of current IP legislation. It is argued that the modern conception of intellectual property as a kind of natural right, stems from the mistaken internalist or Augustinian picture of language that Wittgenstein attempted to diffuse. This view becomes persuasive once it is shown that a complete understanding of the argument against private language must include Wittgenstein's investigation of the role of the will in the creative process. It is argued that original thought is not born by decree of the will, but engendered by a public context of meaning and value. What marks a person as a genius is, therefore, according to Wittgenstein, not some sovereign capacity of conceptual world-making, but merely a propitious dose of intellectual courage. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

对雇员发明专利权归属的再思考

雇员发明专利权的归属问题是专利法中比较重要的问题。我国《专利法》试图通过对专利的发明有实质性贡献的判断来平衡发明人与单位之间的利益,而不是仅凭雇佣关系的外表来判定专利权的归属。这一点是值得肯定的。但是现有立法在更多的时候却背离了专利权归发明人本人所有这一知识产权领域中的古老原则。应在坚持一些基本原则的前提下,借鉴外国的立法例,使这个问题得到更合理的解决。     

对平行进口可否行使禁止请求权——日本最高法院1997年7月1日第三小法庭判决

对专利产品平行进口如何进行法律调控是国际贸易和法学领域亟待解决的问题。我国已加入世界贸易组织,在国际贸易中,不可避免地会出现越来越多的专利产品平行进口。但是,在我国现行法律中并没有直接规范专利产品平行进口的条文,司法实践中也没有案例可供参考。车轮案是日本最高法院对专利产品平行进口首次表态的判例,它以专利权人在第一次销售专利产品时未附加限制销售地区为由,允许平行进口,由此否认了专利权人的禁止请求权。该判决一经作出,即在国际社会上引起广泛关注。现将三村量一法官就该案撰写的文章翻译成中文,以为我国学者研究和法官处理专利产品平行进口问题,提供第一手参考资料。     

专利侵权判定中等同原则的适用

等同原则是发明和实用新型专利侵权判断中的一个重要原则，但由于我国现行法律对等同原则规定得比较少，给专利侵权判定工作带来了较大的不确定性。在适用等同原则时应当以侵权行为发生的时间为界限，应当摈弃适用多余指定原则，并且要运用申请历史禁止反悔原则和已有技术抗辩原则进行适当限制。     

假冒他人专利、冒充专利与侵犯专利权行为辨析——兼谈专利法第三次修改

假冒他人专利行为与侵犯专利权行为、冒充专利行为相互间的关系一直是困扰理论界以及司法实践的难题。在利益平衡的理念下，以社会公众利益为视角对假冒他人专利行为进行重新解读：假冒他人专利与侵犯专利权之间是互相排斥的，假冒他人专利与冒充专利二者应做一体化的法律规定。     

专利代理师制度改革的法律思考

2019年是专利代理制度改革元年,从专利代理人跨越到专利代理师,不仅仅是称谓的改变,其背后凸显的是专利代理师制度改革的法律逻辑,对专利代理活动的规范,解决专利代理实务问题,特别是专利代理师制度与律师制度双资格问题的探讨。通过域外专利代理制度的横向比较,借鉴有益经验,从法律思维角度出发,对我国专利代理师制度的改革进行思考。     

Jinan Eco-Energy Brings Its Green Dream to the World

正A tide of innovation is sweeping across China.For three years China has led the world in patent applications,carving a foothold in modern fields like high-speed trains,machinery exports and technical standards.Every business in the industrial sector is braving the tide,struggling for     

确立健康权保护义务的对世性--TRIPS下专利权和健康权冲突的出路

专利权和健康权的冲突自TRIPS协议确立的知识产权一体化保护后愈演愈烈,《多哈宣言》缓解了二者的冲突,但未从人权的角度为健康权保护提供依据。《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约》规定了健康权,但却因用语模糊而被认为是一种政策性原则,TRIPS协议对专利权“私权神圣”的保护模式更加重了健康权的“弱势”。健康权对应有明晰、具体的义务,而非模糊的政策标准。在国际法人本化时代,健康权代表的全人类共同利益折射出国家保护健康权所承担义务的对世性。这为解决TRIPS下专利权和健康权冲突提供了解决思路。     

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。