知识产权类案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例

北大法律信息网 2021-09-21

目录
Contents

1.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)

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.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)

一、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)

【裁判要旨】

[Judgment Abstract]

1.马库什方式撰写的化合物权利要求一直被视为结构式的表达方式，而非功能性的表达方式。马库什权利要求限定的是并列的可选要素而非权利要求，应当符合专利法和专利法实施细则关于单一性的规定。马库什权利要求应当被视为马库什要素的集合，而不是众多化合物的集合，应当理解为具有共同性能和作用的一类化合物。

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.在无效阶段对马库什权利要求进行修改必须给予严格限制，允许对马库什权利要求进行修改的原则应当是不能因为修改而产生新性能和作用的一类或单个化合物，但是同时也要充分考量个案因素。

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.马库什权利要求创造性判断应当遵循创造性判断的基本方法，即专利审查指南所规定的“三步法”。意料不到的技术效果是创造性判断的辅助因素，通常不宜跨过“三步法”直接适用具有意想不到的技术效果来判断专利申请是否具有创造性。

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.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2018年第6期（总第260期）第18-29页

Source Note: SPC Gazette, Issue 6, 2018 (Total No. 260) Pages 18-29

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.10778049

[CLI Code] CLI.C.10778049(EN)

二、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)

【裁判摘要】

[Judgment Abstract]

一、已经被明确变更的合议组成员又在被诉行政决定书上署名，实质上等于“审理者未裁决、裁决者未审理”，悖离依法行政的宗旨，减损社会公众对行政执法主体的信任。此已经构成对法定程序的严重违反，不受行政相对人主观认知的影响，也不因行政相对人不持异议而改变，不属于“行政行为程序轻微违法，无需撤销行政行为”之情形。

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”.

二、行政执法人员具备相应的执法资格，是行政主体资格合法的应有之义，也是全面推进依法行政的必然要求。原则上，作出被诉行政决定的合议组应由该行政机关具有专利行政执法资格的工作人员组成。即使异地调配执法人员，也应当履行正式、完备的公文手续。

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.

三、权利要求的内容是划定专利权保护范围的唯一标准，说明书、附图只是用于解释权利要求的内容。在运用说明书和附图解释权利要求时，不能将说明书对具体实施例的具体描述读入权利要求。

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.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2018年第5期（总第259期）第25-34页

Source Note: SPC Gazette, Issue 5, 2018 (Total No. 259) Pages 25-34

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.10703486

[CLI Code] CLI.C.10703486(EN)

三、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)

【裁判要旨】

[Judgment Abstract]

一、专利无效理由可以区分为绝对无效理由和相对无效理由两种类型，两者在被规范的客体本质、立法目的等方面存在重大区别。有关外观设计专利权与他人在先合法权利冲突的无效理由属于相对无效理由。当专利法第四十五条关于请求人主体范围的规定适用于权利冲突的无效理由时，基于相对无效理由的本质属性、立法目的以及法律秩序效果等因素，无效宣告请求人的主体资格应受到限制，原则上只有在先合法权利的权利人及其利害关系人才能主张。

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.

二、在行政诉讼程序中，人民法院受理相关诉讼后，为保证诉讼程序的稳定和避免诉讼不确定状态的发生，当事人的主体资格不因有关诉讼标的的法律关系随后发生变化而丧失。专利无效宣告行政程序属于准司法程序，当事人恒定原则对于该程序亦有参照借鉴意义。对于无效宣告行政程序启动时符合资格条件的请求人，即便随后有关诉讼标的的法律关系发生变化，其亦不因此当然丧失主体资格。

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.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》 2018年第5期（总第259期）第19-24页

Source Note: SPC Gazette, Issue 5, 2018 (Total No. 259) Pages 19-24

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.10780259

[CLI Code] CLI.C.10780259(EN)

责任编辑：富敬

稿件来源：北大法宝英文编辑组（Mani）

审核人员：张文硕

更多精彩，请点击菜单栏“法宝盘点-法宝原创-双语新闻”：

▼往期精彩回顾▼

百万法律人都在用的北大法宝详细介绍！

期货类案件汇编

证券类案件汇编