cstr-Patent Law

Patent Reform Act of 2009

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:49:43 +0800

http://www.aipla.org/Content/NavigationMenu/IP_Issues_and_Advocacy/Patent_Reform_Act/Patent_Reform_Act_of_2009.htm

Liaoteng Wang

Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:32:39 +0800

Liaoteng Wang

Associate

Dr. Wang is an associate in the Silicon Valley office of Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, where he practices intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on life sciences and biotechnology. (繼續閱讀...)

Yun-Chia Sophia Chen

Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:26:09 +0800

Yun-Chia Sophia Chen

Associate

Sophia is an associate in the Intellectual Property Litigation group at Dewey & LeBoeuf's Silicon Valley office. She focuses her practice on matters regarding life sciences and biotechnology.

Sophia has extensive experience in molecular biology, genetic engineering, genomic data mining, chemical target validation and agricultural biotechnology. Sophia holds a Ph.D. in plant molecular genetics from the University of California, Berkeley. Prior to practicing law, Sophia was the lead of Gene Expression Technology group at Monsanto Company, where she oversaw and coordinated molecular and bioinformatic discovery for targeted gene expression. At Monsanto, Sophia also led a product development team and supported regulatory approval, commercial product launch and strategic planning. She then obtained her joint JD/MBA degrees from Northwestern Law and Kellogg with an emphasis on biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry. Sophia is also a coauthor of many scientific publications and co-inventor on two pending patents in the area of regulation of gene expression.

Selected Activities

American Bar Association
American Intellectual Property Law Association
Licensing Executives Society

Education
Northwestern University School of Law, 2008, J.D.
Kellogg School of Management, 2008, M.B.A.
University of California, Berkeley, 1997, Ph.D.
National Taiwan University, 1991, B.S.

Bar Admissions
California

Court Admissions
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Languages
Mandarin Chinese
Taiwanese

http://www.deweyleboeuf.com/en/People/C/YunChiaSophiaChen.aspx

Arbitration and Patent Law

Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:59:18 +0800

Microchip Tech. Inc. v. U.S. Philips Corp., 367 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

對未來生活的想像才是科技創新的基礎

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:02:32 +0800

台灣產業為何無法轉型?

這是因為我們對於未來的生活沒有想像.

馬英九推節能減碳?

但是他的環保科技政策在哪裡?

因為要過更環保的生活, 科技在哪裡?

不開冷氣? 這是過更好的生活嗎?

不開車? 這是過更好的生活嗎?

難道不能發明省電的冷氣? 省油少廢氣的汽車嗎? (繼續閱讀...)

若您認為應納入專利間接侵權之規定，對於草案條文之規定有無修正建議?

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:53:44 +0800

請增加一項，為「關於本條第一項之「侵害該專利權之人」，其專利侵權行為的成立不以行為人主觀的故意或過失為要件，只要以客觀事實能夠推測專利侵權行為的存在即可。」

此建議的理由為，在美國法的專利間接侵權行為規範中，最主要的爭議還是直接侵權是否成立。但美國的直接侵權規範是不論行為人的故意或過失，而只要有客觀事實上的侵權行為，則直接侵權即可成立。此和我國專利法規範不同。
(繼續閱讀...)

您認為專利法中是否應明定專利間接侵權之規定？

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:51:41 +0800

我認為應該要規定。

第一，按照現行民法，專利權人必須要同時起訴直接侵權人和間接侵權人，才能以共同侵權行為為由來對間接侵權人請求損害賠償。這制度對專利權人來說並無權利保護之幫助，因為如果直接侵權人是專利權人的客戶，則專利權人根本無法對直接侵權人起訴，因而讓間接侵權人逍遙法外。
(繼續閱讀...)

智慧財產案件審理法新制問答彙編

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:16:33 +0800

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

The Effects of Changing U.S. Patent Law

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:16:01 +0800

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...)

BSKB has offered its Summer Training Program (STP) which provides lectures and instruction in all aspects of U.S. Patent Law.

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:38:26 +0800

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

Why patent law is the best profession in the world

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:22:57 +0800

網路美國專利法諮詢

Wed, 21 May 2008 11:41:06 +0800

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。

淺談智慧財產管理的目的

Wed, 21 May 2008 11:39:27 +0800

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...)

US Patent Law: II. Claim Construction (revised 1)

Sun, 18 May 2008 20:53:58 +0800

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)

US Patent Law: III. Patentability: 102

Sun, 18 May 2008 01:17:38 +0800

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)

US Patent Law: II. Claim Construction

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:12:41 +0800

US Patent Law: I. Patent Law History

Wed, 14 May 2008 05:28:35 +0800

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...)

美國專利法教學用教材編寫計畫01

Mon, 12 May 2008 01:09:35 +0800

如果要開一個完整的美國專利法課程或學程，至少要有三個核心課程。

一是美國專利法
二是美國專利申請實務
三是美國專利侵權訴訟實務

美國專利法在介紹美國專利法的基本規範架構，重點在提供概念，而不是很仔細的法律原則規範。他應該涵蓋所有的法律議題。然而，他不需要介紹很仔細的實務運作。

美國專利申請實務主要在講授如何進行申請案的製作，包括面談發明人到說明書的撰寫。他還要包括申請程序和申請文件的製備。還有不服審查官核駁處分後之行政救濟。

美國專利侵權訴訟實務主要在講授專利民事訴訟中的程序議題，和如何撰寫相關文書。

除了三個核心課程，進階課程為專利法的法律與政策、專利法歷史、專利法爭議問題。

Doctrine of Equivalents: what is “unforeseeable at the time the claim was drafted” for purposes of Prosecution History Estoppel

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:26:04 +0800

I. Introduction

Direct patent infringement has two types: literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE). See John C. Evans, Addressing Default Trends In Patent-Based Section 337 Proceedings In The United States International Trade Commission, 106 Mich. L. Rev. 745, 765 (2008). “Literal infringement occurs if each and every element of the asserted claim, as construed, can be identified in the accused product.” Id. The DOE “allows the patentee to claim those insubstantial alterations that were not captured in drafting the original patent claim but which could be created through trivial changes.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722, 733, 122 S. Ct. 1831, 1838 (2002)(“Festo VIII”). (繼續閱讀...)

專利工程師的生涯發展01

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:06:29 +0800

公司內專利工程師-->學士後法律學士或碩士-->公司內法務兼專利工程師-->公司內法務主管

University Technology Transfer Literatures Dated Jan. 21, 2008

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:56:36 +0800

University Technology Transfer Literatures Dated Jan. 21, 2008 (繼續閱讀...)

Patent Issue Spot Guideline (For the Exam Purposes)

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:46:51 +0800

General ideas:
(1) Do not mention rules; just apply rules
(2) Players: inventors, people around inventors, patentees, infringers
(3) Tech. information: before invention; before effective filing date; before filing date; before issuance; time of amendment; time of infringement.
(4) Behavior: communication; business activites (繼續閱讀...)

專技人員專利師考試資格科目

Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:31:47 +0800

專技人員專利師考試資格科目初訂 (繼續閱讀...)

Patent Law Outline for the Final Exam (draft02)

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:17:09 +0800

Patent Law Outline for the Final Exam (draft02) (繼續閱讀...)

Patent Law Outline for the Final Exam (draft01)

Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:40:19 +0800

Patent Law Outline for the Final Exam (繼續閱讀...)

Patent Law Outline Plan

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:27:36 +0800

I Phase I
1. Claim Construction

II. Phase II: Validity
2. 101

3. 112
- written description
- enablement
- best mode
- definiteness
(繼續閱讀...)

Whether 102(e) prior arts should be counted as a prior art for the 103 rejection

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:55:22 +0800

Letter to Prof. Kieff, (繼續閱讀...)

Comments on KSR

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:52:26 +0800

Letter to Prof. Kieff, (繼續閱讀...)

Definiteness: Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996)

Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:30:53 +0800

7. Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
(繼續閱讀...)

Written Description: Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996)

Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:24:58 +0800

6. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
(繼續閱讀...)

Written Description: Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)

Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:20:00 +0800

5. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(繼續閱讀...)

Best Mode: Great Northern Corp. v. Henry Molded Products, Inc. 94 F.3d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1996)

Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:01:07 +0800

4. Adequate Disclosure: Great Northern Corp. v. Henry Molded Products, Inc. 94 F.3d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (繼續閱讀...)

Best Mode: Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:00:01 +0800

3. Subjective Inventor Preference on Filing Date: Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (繼續閱讀...)

An Introduction to the Patent System (streaming video)

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:00:25 +0800

An Introduction to the Patent System (streaming video)

Patent Law-Enablement: In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595 (CCPA 1977)

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:19:48 +0800

2. In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595 (CCPA 1977)

The documents, published after the effective filing date of the patent application under 120, can be used as evidence of showing the prior art on the date of the effective filing date, but not as evidence of a later state of the prior art for supporting the 112 rejections.

Patent Law-Enablement: In re Glass, 492 F.2d 1228 (CCPA 1974)

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:15:31 +0800

1. In re Glass, 492 F.2d 1228 (CCPA 1974)

The documents, published after the filing date of the patent application, cannot be used as evidence of supporting the enablement requirement (35 U.S.C. 112).

專利侵權人之推定過失主義—最高法院民事裁定94年度台上字第1340號

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:41:27 +0800

The Highest Court ruled that「又按專利法第五十六條規定，物品專利權人，除本法另有規定者外，專有排除他人未經其同意而製造、販賣、使用或為上述目的而進口該物品之權。旨在保障專利權人之智慧財產權，倘未經專利權人之同意而製造專利權之物品，即難謂其未違反保護他人之法律，依修正前民法第一百八十四條第二項之規定，即應推定其有過失。原審依調查證據而為辯論之結果，認定被上訴人之新型專利第八七二六二號改良之清潔刷，業於民國八十二年十一月二十一日刊登於中華民國專利公報，編號為二一六五一二號，已生公示之效果，上訴人未經被上訴人同意，由上訴人肇威股份有限公司委託上訴人新達織帶編網廠股份有限公司製造該專利權之清潔刷物品，即違反上開保護專利權人之專利法，自應推定其過失，因而為上訴人敗訴之判決，核無違背法令之情事，併此敘明。」（見最高法院民事裁定94年度台上字第1340號理由。）

It is a pro-patentee decision. Great job.

How Changes to Patent Law Will Affect Patent Practice

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:18:40 +0800

How Changes to Patent Law Will Affect Patent Practice

專利侵權損害賠償請求權時效之修法建議

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:09:25 +0800

1、建議條文

本法所定之請求權，自請求權人知有行為及賠償義務人時起，二年間不行使而消滅；自行為時起，逾十年者，亦同。時效的抗辯由被告負舉證責任。

本法所定之請求權，其時效不適用民法之規定。

本法所定之請求權，消滅時效，因下列事由而中斷：
一、專利權人向賠償義務人請求。
二、專利權人向賠償義務人提出系爭專利權授權的要約。
三、賠償義務人承認或知有專利侵權行為的事實。
四、專利權人在法院對賠償義務人提起專利侵權民事訴訟。
五、主管機關於舉發程序中對系爭專利權所為之實體或程序上之行政處分未確定者。
六、與系爭專利權有關的其他民事訴訟仍繫屬於法院者。
七、就系爭專利侵權糾紛，專利權人已聲請調解或提付仲裁者。
八、就系爭專利侵權糾紛，專利權人已開始執行行為或聲請強制執行者。
九、因天災、戰爭或其他不可避之事變。
十、專利權人因生活貧困或身體不佳，而無法主張其請求權者亦同。專利權人為法人者，其處於破產、重整、清算、合併、解散、分割或消滅等等階段者亦同。
十一、在專利權人求請後，賠償義務人不停止其侵權行為者。

本法所定之請求權，其時效中斷，以當事人、繼承人、受讓人之間為限，始有效力。

本法所定之請求權，其時效完成後，債務人得拒絕給付。但請求權已經時效消滅，債務人仍為履行之給付者，不得以不知時效為理由，請求返還；其以契約承認該債務或提出擔保者亦同。

本法所定之請求權，其時效期間，不得以法律行為加長或減短之，或不得預先拋棄時效之利益。

本條於專屬被授權人亦適用之。
(繼續閱讀...)

96台北場「整合國內外專利資料庫，進行產業之研發與應用」

Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:00:13 +0800

96台北場「整合國內外專利資料庫，進行產業之研發與應用」 (繼續閱讀...)

96年度專利侵權實務研討會(台北場)

Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:40:37 +0800

96年度專利侵權實務研討會(台北場) (繼續閱讀...)

專利法與民法債篇-01

Mon, 28 May 2007 08:30:35 +0800

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。

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.-03

Tue, 01 May 2007 10:00:04 +0800

"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.

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.-02

Tue, 01 May 2007 09:37:22 +0800

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."

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.-01

Tue, 01 May 2007 07:35:34 +0800

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.

中國專利法--「全國專利代理人資格考試指南」導讀

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:28:20 +0800

「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...)

台灣專利侵權民事訴訟的證據原則

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:22:24 +0800

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在專利民事訴訟的角色

Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:08:51 +0800

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...)

以程序面向談專利舉發的證據原則－（舊）行政法院相關判決之整理

Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:53:03 +0800

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

Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:57:35 +0800

《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...)