cstr

96年度專利侵權實務研討會(台北場) ...繼續閱讀

民法債篇各論是一堂沒有修過的課，所以我對許多契約類型的法律規範並沒有基礎的認識。如何彌補此缺憾？還是只有從專利法或專利服務產業的角度出發去看民法債篇。因此，又有不少論文可以寫了。

"When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options withinhis or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that itwas obvious under §103." See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., at 17. So, the teaching, suggestion or motivation comes from not only the cited prior arts but other references having no claimed elements therein.

According to the Supreme Court's KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. at 15, the "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" test is one way to find the obviousness. However, the Court further taught that "In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniquesor combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends." Now the defendant has to hire another lawyers to find out the facts concerning "market demand."

In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. at 5, the Supreme Court said: "The Circuit first erred in holding that courts and patent examiners should look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the patent can provide a reasonfor combining the elements in the manner claimed." So let's say goodbye to some ridiculous patents.

「全國專利代理人資格考試指南」導讀

說明：
1、 整個導讀分為六大主題，總共25個子題，將分12次（每次一小時）完成導讀。
2、 主要是法條、細則、及指南的研討。
3、 輔助教材是法院判決和論文。

...繼續閱讀

根據最高法院民事判決86年度台上字第65號，在專利侵權民事訴訟中，對於專利侵權行為的事實，法院應該自行認定。雖然有鑑定報告做為裁判的基礎，但法院須論述為何採用此鑑定報告的內容，不應不討論報告的內容，而直接採信以做為事實認定的依據，因為鑑定報告不能取代法院認定事實的責任。甚至，根據最高法院民事判決95年度台上字第1886號，法院在面對被控侵權物遺失的情況下，仍應就現有的侵權鑑定報告予以證據調查，而傳喚鑑定人到庭接受詢問以釐清爭議的事實，並再以詢問所得的證詞為法律論證的依據。 ...繼續閱讀

美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院（CAFC）在專利民事訴訟的角色，類似我國的最高法院，但其主要在審查下級法院判決中的法律（適用）問題（question of law）和經法院所認定的事實問題（question of fact）。
...繼續閱讀

因為專利權的「排除權」的特質，國家必須審慎決定專利權的授與。而專利權雖由國家機關審理，但因考慮審查官的能力限制而無法找出相關的前案，故專利法中設有「公開審查制度」，即專利法第六十七條之舉發制度，以補強審查官之審查。 ...繼續閱讀

《美國專利訴訟攻防策略及實戰經驗》報名表

議題：專利侵權訴訟流程圖解：ITC及法院的雙軌分析、訴訟費用掌握
講師：賴清陽律師 (語言：英文、中文)
議題：30年40案法庭實戰經驗分享：訴訟技巧、攻防策略、和解授權
講師：William L. LaFuze律師 ...繼續閱讀