推 VanDeLord:以我的認知,這篇說到一個重點： Claim construction 06/13 00:01
推 VanDeLord:ps:Chisum on Patents 是權威書,一本十多萬塊,挺貴@@" 06/13 00:05
推 VanDeLord:仔細看了一下Amazon，竟然二十多冊，=.== 06/13 10:47
※ 引述《neffen (neffen)》之銘言：
: ※ 引述《colinh (ColinH)》之銘言：
: : 美國法院和USPTO對專利範圍的解讀是否有效或是否需要核駁是站在不同的標準上
: 呃...有人可以簡單解釋一下不同的標準是差在哪裡嗎?
: 還是有相關書籍或文章可以讓我延伸閱讀一下
: 抱歉, 我是新手, 希望問的問題不會很蠢
前一篇中priorart大推文已經有解釋
以下是我個人的看法與到處亂抄的東西
首先從section 282第一段說起
35 U.S.C. 282 Presumption of validity; defenses.
A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in
independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid
independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple
dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an
invalid claim. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if a claim to a
composition of matter is held invalid and that claim was the basis of a
determination of nonobviousness under section 103(b)(1), the process shall no
longer be considered nonobvious solely on the basis of section 103(b)(1). The
burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest
on the party asserting such invalidity.
對於已獲證訴訟中的專利 必須先假設為專利有效
對有效的專利, 可以提出defense
若提出的defense是無效則要有證據可以推翻這個假設
Section 282提供了四類的defense
1. 不侵權 2. 因無可專利性無效 3. 不符合section 112或251無效 4. 其他
CAFC在1996年內
Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc.案中
決定若要推翻這個假設的有效性
主張專利無效者有責任提出明確且具說服力(clear and convincing)水準的證據
Microsoft曾經在對Z4的案子被判侵權敗訴後 請求上訴最高法院將證據水準降低
不過被最高法院不受理
這個Presumption of valid也影響到法院對專利的claim construction
過去上級法院的案例建立了一些解讀專利的原則
而法院在解讀權利範圍時必須遵守這些原則
其中之一就是解讀要儘可能的支持專利有效性
在1983年 CAFC的案例中 CAFC判決認為:
當解讀權的立範圍會導致專利無效時 適當的法律結論是為不侵權 而非專利無效
(這個原則的起源可追溯至1864年最高法院的判決)
Carman Industries, Inc. v. Wahl, CAFC, 1983 -
Claims should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity.
Turrill v. Michigan S. & N.I.R.R. Co., 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 491, 510, 17 L. Ed.
668 (1864); Klein v. Russell, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 433, 466, 22 L. Ed. 116
(1874). If such a construction would result in invalidity of the claims, the
appropriate legal conclusion is one of non-infringement, not invalidity
但是後來當然也有其他案例再進一步解釋 否則法院都不用判專利無效了:
當唯一的claim construction符合claim language與written description
而且此解讀會讓該claim無效時
上述判決的原則不適用 這個claim就是單純的無效
Rhine v. Casio, Inc., CAFC, 1999 -
The Court has consistently limited the axiom to cases where the construction
is "practicable" and does not conflict with the explicit language of the
claim. .... if the only claim construction that is consistent with the
claim's language and the written description renders the claim invalid,
then the axiom does not apply and the claim is simply invalid.
後續還有其他的case law進一步說明與補充這個原則
在此就不多說了
有興趣者可以參考Chisum on Patents之類的書
但是USPTO對專利申請案與專利的解讀則與法院的原則有差異
申請時就不多說了 申請案並非專利
自然沒有Section 282的presumption of validity
另外CAFC 1985年的案例亦支持PTO在處理再審查程序時
Section 282的presumption of validity不適用於審查委員解讀claim上
再審時PTO對claim的解讀為與說明書一致的最大合理的範圍
說明書中的限制則不必解讀進去限縮claim範圍
PTO重審時也不需因為專利已獲准公告過
而在解讀時刻意維持其有效性
因此較容易發出rejection 使專利權人需回應PTO 有可能需修改claim
造成專利reissue或abandoned
Ex Parte Reexamination -
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200_2258.htm
During reexamination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are
not read into the claims (In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed.
Cir. 1984)). In a reexamination proceeding involving claims of an expired
patent, claim construction pursuant to the principle set forth by the court
in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (words of a claim "are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning" as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention) should be applied since the expired
claim are not subject to amendment. The statutory presumption of validity, 35
U.S.C. 282, has no application in reexamination (In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852,
225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Inter Partes Reexamination - 與Ex Parte Reexamination MPEP 2258同
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2600_2658.htm#sect2658
Rejections on art in reexamination proceedings may only be made on the basis
of prior art patents or printed publications, or double patenting. See MPEP §
2258 and § 2258.01 for a discussion of art rejections in reexamination
proceedings based on prior art patents or printed publications. The
discussion there includes making double patenting rejections and the use of
admissions
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 118.167.205.71