cstr

http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/judlib/EBookQry04.asp?S=V&scode=V&seq=1

On November 20, 2007, the Santa Clara High Tech Law Institute co-sponsored a panel discussion with the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, and the Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Law Association.

The distinguished panel included SCU Professor Colleen Chien; Robert Freitas, a partner at Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLC; Paul Stone, Chief Counsel at AllChemie; and Judge Ronald Whyte of the District Court for the Northern District of California. Robert Barr, the Executive Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology moderated.

...繼續閱讀

http://www.bskb.com/semsstp.htm

如果你有關於美國專利法的問題，請你留言。我想盡可能地提供我的看法。不過你所提供的資訊，將要成為我撰寫論文時候的材料，並且因為論文所產生收益將全部歸於本人。

在知識經濟的時代，當公司伴隨著技術創新而成長，他必須同時考慮著如何小心地保護其技術創新。 公司可使用一些智慧財產權保護工具，例如：專利法、著作權法、商標法、營業秘密保護法。然而，這些權利並不需要永遠地維護直到這些權利的保護期限到期，因為我們必須要衡量維護權利所要投入的費用和這些權利所保護的技術其產生的受益，以評估是否要繼續維持權利的有效性。因此，公司必須要對智慧財產權進行管理，以利於檢討權利維護（例如：年費繳交）的政策。以下，筆者將提出公司為何要執行智慧財產管理的六大目的。

1. 挖掘公司內的創新活動並且將其成果變成智慧財產權保護的標的
公司必須要建制一個系統來監控公司內部的創新活動，並且這系統必須可用以評估何種智慧財產權工具來保護創新活動的成果是最合適的或有效率的。每個創新活動都應給予適合的智慧財產權工具，以成為創新活動所帶來的資產的法律保護基礎。以半導體製造業為例，製程工程師測試出可以提高生產線的量率的機台參數，那麼這個機台參數的數值本身或是選擇數值的程序或步驟可能會是受智慧財產權保護的標的，而公司必須要有一個系統來知悉此工程師何時對此製程參數有了測試想法、他做了什麼樣的測試實驗、以及他如何得到了這樣的參數，接著公司則可以決定要不要申請專利或是以營業秘密保護。 ...繼續閱讀

II. Claim Construction
A. Question of Law
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384 (1996)
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 347 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

B. Patent Prosecution
In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984)

C. Patent Litigation
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Services, Inc., 344 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Robert Fram, Laurie Adams, Tanya Mazur and Heller Ehrman, Claim Construction And Implicit Definitions Based On The Specification Since Phillips, 8 Sedona Conf. J. 65 (Fall 2007)

D. Preamble Interpretation
Poly-America, L.P. v. GSE Lining Technology, Inc., 383 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

E. Means-plus-Function
TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

III. Patentability: 102
A. 35 U.S.C. 102
Go Medical Industries Pty., Ltd. v. Inmed Corp., 471 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(discussing the benefit of the earlier filing date)
SRI Intern., Inc. v. Internet Sec. Systems, Inc., 511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(discussion the enablement of a prior art)

B. 35 U.S.C. 102(a): Public Accessibility
1. General
Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
2. Public Accessibility
In re Borst, 52 C.C.P.A. 1398, 345 F.2d 851 (CCPA 1965)
Carella v. Starlight Archery and Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

C. 35 U.S.C. 102(b): Public Use & On Sale
1. General
In re Smith, 714 F.2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
2. Public Use
Netscape Communications Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
3. On Sale
Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 119 S.Ct. 304 (1998)
Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
Lacks Industries, Inc. v. McKechnie Vehicle Components USA, Inc., 322 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
4. Defense: Experimental Use
Baxter Intern., Inc. v. COBE Laboratories, Inc., 88 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
R. Andrew Schwentker, Experimenting With The Experimental-Use Exception: Proposals For A Tax Alternative, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 426 (February 2008).

D. 35 U.S.C. 102(c)
OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

E. 35 U.S.C. 102(d)
Bayer AG v. Schein Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 301 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

F. 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
Riverwood Intern. Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., Inc., 324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

G. 35 U.S.C. 102(f)
OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

H. 35 U.S.C. 102(g)
1. Prior Art
Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
Z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 507 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
2. Interference
Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
Henkel Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 485 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
Frazer v. Schlegel, 498 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
In re Garner, 508 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

II. Claim Construction
A. Question of Law
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384 (1996)
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 347 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...繼續閱讀

I. Patent Law History
A. U.S. Constitution

B. Legislative History
Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 109 S.Ct. 971 (1989) ...繼續閱讀