作者ides13 (鬼)
看板Patent
標題Re: [問題] 美國案的問題
時間Wed Dec 19 00:32:43 2012
關於此問題，還可以再參考2000年的Sandra Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. 的判例
被告也是以專利律師應該是發明人抗辨，但法官認為，
專利律師的任務是幫助發明人取得專利，不能對抗發明人，因
此專利律師不能當作發明人。
Sandra Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. 00-1033:
" An attorney’s professional responsibility is to assist his or her client
in defining her invention to obtain, if possible, a valid patent with maximum
coverage. An attorney performing that role should not be a competitor of the
client, asserting inventorship as a result of representing his client. Cf.
Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure app. R § 10.64 (7th ed.1998) ("Avoiding acquisition of
interest in litigation or proceeding before the [Patent and Trademark]
Office"). Thus, to assert that proper performance of the attorney’s role is
a ground for invalidating the patent constitutes a failure to understand the
proper role of a patent attorney. "
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 118.160.110.164
推 musicfreshma:大推~ 12/19 00:41
→ larksong:謝謝. 以前沒注意到這個案例. 12/19 02:19
推 kaikai1112:有學有推 12/19 07:07
推 WAIJEE:推推 12/19 13:16
推 jerico:大推... 12/19 15:34
推 piglauhk:謝i大 12/19 15:57
→ VanDeLord:所以發明人以後丟個IDEA給事務所就可以要求事務所完成該 12/19 16:35
→ VanDeLord:發明,事務所辦不到就說事務所沒能力? XD 12/19 16:35
→ VanDeLord:is that so? 12/19 16:35
→ VanDeLord:我個人覺得關鍵字在"defining", "maximum coverage" 12/19 16:37
→ VanDeLord:這與p大所述內容仍有差異 12/19 16:37
→ VanDeLord:發明人是否提供具備3C條件的內容idea才是關鍵,本案未提 12/19 16:38
推 orsonplus:這系列文的討論很有趣 都會丟精華區 先解m囉 12/22 09:29