知识产权侵权类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
目录
Contents
1. 罗世凯与斯特普尔斯公司、国家知识产权专利复审委员会外观设计专利权无效行政纠纷案 Luo Shikai v. Staples Inc. and Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (case of administrative dispute over invalidation of design patent right)
2. 西峡龙成特种材料有限公司与榆林市知识产权局、陕西煤业化工集团神木天元化工有限公司专利侵权纠纷行政处理案 Xixia Longcheng Special Materials Co., Ltd. v. Yulin Intellectual Property Office and Shaanxi Coal and Chemical Industry Group Shenmu Tianyuan Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (administrative resolution of dispute over patent infringement)
3. 北京万生药业有限责任公司与国家知识产权局专利复审委员会、第三人第一三共株式会社发明专利权无效行政纠纷案 Beijing Orient Tide Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office, and Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited (as a third party) (administrative dispute over the invalidation of the patent for invention)
Luo Shikai v. Staples Inc. and Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (case of administrative dispute over invalidation of design patent right)
[Judgment Abstract]
1. The grounds for patent invalidation may be divided into two types, absolute grounds and relative grounds. The two types of grounds have great differences in terms of the nature of the regulated object and the legislative purpose, etc. The grounds for invalidation concerning the conflict between the design patent right and others' prior legitimate rights are relative grounds for invalidation. When the provisions of Article 45 of the Patent Law concerning the scope of petitioners apply to the grounds for invalidation of the conflict of rights, the eligibility as a petitioner requesting for invalidating the patent shall be restricted in consideration of the essential attributes of relative grounds for invalidation, legislative purposes, and legal order and effect, among others. In principle, the invalidation shall only be requested by the prior legitimate right holder and his or her interested party.
2. In administrative judicial proceedings, after the people's court accepts the relevant litigation, for the purpose of maintaining the stability of the judicial proceedings and avoiding the occurrence of uncertain state of the litigation, the legal status of the party concerned shall not terminate as a result of the subsequent change of the legal relations concerning the subject matter of the relevant litigation. The administrative proceedings for invalidating a patent are quasi-judicial proceedings and the constant party doctrine is also of reference significance for these proceedings. Therefore, even if the legal relations concerning the subject matter of litigation subsequently changes, the petitioner who meets the qualification conditions at the commencement of the administrative proceedings for invalidation declaration shall not necessarily lose his or her legal status.
[CLI Code] CLI.C.10780259(EN)
Xixia Longcheng Special Materials Co., Ltd. v. Yulin Intellectual Property Office and Shaanxi Coal and Chemical Industry Group Shenmu Tianyuan Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (administrative resolution of dispute over patent infringement)
[Judgment Abstract]
1. The signature on the administrative decision being sued by the member of the panel explicitly substituted is substantially equivalent to that “the person conducting the trial did not enter a ruling, and the person entering a ruling had not conducted the trial”, which deviates from the fundamental principle of governing by law, and derogates from the public's trust in administrative law enforcement agencies. The said act constitutes a serious violation of the statutory procedures, so neither it is subject to the administrative counterpart's subjective cognition, nor does change due to no objection raised by the administrative counterpart, not under the situation where “there is a petty violation of the statutory procedures in taking an administrative action and thus it is not required to revoke it”.
2. The administrative law enforcement personnel should be correspondingly qualified, which is not only the proper meaning of the legality of the administrative subject but also the indispensable requirement for comprehensively promoting the administration by the law. In principle, the collegial panel making the administrative decision being sued should have been composed of employees of the administrative agency qualifying for administrative law enforcement relating to patents. Even if the law enforcement personnel are dispatched from a different place, formal and complete documentary procedure should be followed.
3. The content of the claims is the sole criterion for delineating the protection scope of a patent, and the specification and appended drawings are only used to explain the claims. When the specification and appended drawings are used to explain the claims, the detailed description of an example in the specification should not be read in the claims.
Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 5, 2018
[CLI Code] CLI.C.10703486(EN)
Beijing Orient Tide Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office, and Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited (as a third party) (administrative dispute over the invalidation of the patent for invention)
[Judgment Abstract]
1. The compound claims written in the form of a Markush claim have always been regarded as the structural expression rather than the functional expression. The Markush claim, which defines parallel optional elements rather than claims, should comply with the provisions on singularity as provided for in the Patent Law and the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law. The Markush claims should be considered as a collection of Markush elements rather than a collection of numerous compounds, and thus should be understood as a class of compounds with common properties and effects.
2. The modifications to the Markush claims in the invalidity phase must be strictly limited, and the principle under which the modification to the Markush claims is allowed should be that a class of compounds or a single compound with new properties and effects cannot be produced as a result of the modification, with individual factors taken into full account.
3. The inventive step of the compound claims written in the form of a Markush claim should be determined according to the basic method of determination of an inventive step, namely the "three-step methodology" in the patent examination manual. Since an unanticipated technical effect is an auxiliary factor to determine an inventive step, it is usually inappropriate to skip the "three-step methodology" and directly use unanticipated technical effects to determine whether a patent application involved an inventive step.
[CLI Code] CLI.C. 10778049(EN)
客服 | 法小宝
微信 | pkulaw-kefu
微博 | @北大法宝
点击相应图片识别二维码
获取更多信息
北大法宝
北大法律信息网
法宝学堂
法宝智能