Microsoft Word - 外部备忘录-CHN dot

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Microsoft Word - 外部备忘录-CHN dot"

竣褚
5 years ago
Views:

1 New Judicial Interpretations on Trying Patent Infringement Disputes (No.25) The Interpretations on Several Issues concerning Application of Law in Hearing Patent Infringement Cases by the Supreme People s Court (the Patent Interpretation ) was recently released and took effect from January 1, By laying down some guidelines for trying patent infringement cases, the Patent Interpretation aims to support the implementation of the newly-amended PRC Patent Law (the Patent Law ) from the angle of judicial practice. Specifically, the Patent Interpretation addresses three major issues that have frequently confronted Chinese courts in the past, namely (i) how to determine the scope of the patent protection; (ii) how to compare the patent claims to the infringing devices; and (iii) how to calculate the compensatory damages. 1. Claim Construction The claims to a patent are of the essence. According to Article 59.1 of the Patent Law, they alone determine the scope of protection for that patented invention or utility while relevant specifications and drawings are presented to interpret such claims. To assist in applying this general principle to judicial practice, the Patent Interpretation provides the following rules and principles so as to clarify and help resolve some of the common disputes over the scope of a patent. (i) Public Dedication Rule - any technical solution disclosed in a patent specification or drawing, but not claimed, is dedicated to the public domain. Thus, the relevant patentee would not secure any exclusive right to such unclaimed technical solution. (ii) Doctrine of Estoppels - where the patentee has chosen to surrender a technical solution by way of revising the claim, specification, or opinion representations during patent prosecution or patent invalidity ruling proceedings, patent protection will not thereafter be conferred upon such surrendered technical

2 solutions. (iii) Patentee s Free Will patent right is private and therefore free to be disposed of by the patentee. As per the Patent Interpretation, where a court proceeding involves a patent, the patentee may make changes to the patent claim(s) before the conclusion of the court debate of first instance, and may also request to determine the scope of that patent based on a dependent claim (as opposed to a independent one) thereof. (iv) Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art - when reading a patent claim in light of specifications and drawings, the court should look to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of that claim. (v) Understanding Claims - claims are given their ordinary and customary meaning through their specifications, drawings, and patent review records (collectively referred to as the intrinsic evidence ) unless it appears from the specification that the inventor chose to be his own lexicographer and used them differently. Only if ambiguity persists after a court has considered all the foregoing intrinsic evidence may the court refer to extrinsic evidence, e.g., dictionaries, textbooks, and other public literatures. 2. Infringement Determination (i) All-Elements Rule and Doctrine of Equivalents - infringement should be determined by the court when each and every limitation / element recited in the claim (or an equivalent of which) is found in the accused technical solution. In other words, the accused technical solution would not constitute infringement unless it fully covers all the elements (or the equivalents thereof) in the claims of the relevant patent. (ii) Design Patent Infringement disputed designs shall be compared as a whole, with their ornamental features (instead of functional ones) to be given most considerations. Any resemblances between products shall be identified by comparing their respective usages, which principally include brief descriptions, international classifications, functions, and sale and use conditions. 2

3 (iii) Prior Art Defense - to qualify as a prior art, a device or design should be made known to the public at home and abroad before the patent application date. If all the elements of the accused device at issue are the same as or insubstantially different from the relevant elements in a single prior art reference (in the case of design patent, the accused design needs to be the same as or insubstantially different from a single prior art reference), the accused device or design would be deemed as a prior art and would not constitute infringement. 3. Patent Damages Matching Rule The patent damages shall be determined based on, in sequence, the actual loss suffered by the patentee, the gains from infringement, comparable patent royalties and the judge s discretionary amount. The Patent Interpretation expressly limits, inter alia, the gains from infringement to such extent as solely originated from the infringed patent, suggesting that not all the infringer s gains from the relevant products can be claimed by the patentee. Broad & Bright is a PRC law firm based in Beijing with a branch office in Shanghai. Our firm has an experienced IP team and has earned an impressive reputation through our work in several important cases, especially in the area of IP litigation. Meanwhile, our firm stays abreast of all the legal developments and is dedicated to the best solutions for our clients. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need legal advice pertaining to IP or have interest in, or any questions regarding, the abovementioned content. For our previous newsletters, you may click the following link: Thank you! 最高院公布审理专利侵权纠纷案件的最新司法解释最高人民法院关于审理侵犯专利权纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的解释 ( 专利司法解释 ) 已于近日公布并于 2010 年 1 月 1 日起实施专利司法解释通过规定审理专利侵权案件的指导原则, 从司法实践的角度对新修订的专利法 ( 专利法 ) 的实施起到了有益的补充 3

4 专利司法解释主要阐述了三大在过去的司法实践中法院遇到的问题, 即 (i) 如何界定专利的保护范围 ;(ii) 如何将侵权技术与专利权利要求进行比较 ; 以及 (iii) 如何计算损害赔偿 1. 权利要求的解释专利的权利要求是专利权的根本所在专利法第 59 条第 1 款规定发明或者实用新型专利权的保护范围以其权利要求的内容为主, 说明书及附图可以用于解释权利要求的内容为了使该条原则性规定运用于司法实践中, 专利司法解释作出了以下规定来阐明并解决一些专利权范围的普遍争议 (1) 捐献规则对于仅在说明书或者附图中描述而在权利要求中未记载的技术方案, 将落入公知领域因此, 相关专利权人就该等未写入权利要求的技术方案不得获得任何排他性的权利 (2) 禁止反悔规则专利权人在专利授权或无效宣告程序中, 通过对权利要求说明书的修改或意见陈述而放弃的技术方案, 该放弃的技术方案今后不能获得专利权的保护 (3) 专利权人的自由处分专利权是一项私有权利, 因而专利权人可以自由处分根据专利司法解释, 权利人可以在一审法庭辩论终结前变更其主张的权利要求, 并可以主张以从属权利要求 ( 而非独立权利要求 ) 来确定专利的保护范围 (4) 本领域普通技术人员法院应结合本领域普通技术人员阅读说明书及附图后对权利要求的理解, 来确定该权利要求的范围 (5) 权利要求的解释对于权利要求, 运用说明书及附图专利审查档案 ( 统称为固有证据 ) 一般结合惯常用语来解释, 除非说明书中对权利要求用语有特别界定, 则从其特别界定以上述方法仍不能明确权利要求含义的, 法院可以结合外部证据, 诸如工具书教科书及其他公知文献 4

5 2. 侵权判定 (1) 全面覆盖原则和等同原则被诉侵权技术方案包含与权利要求记载的全部技术特征相同 ( 或等同 ) 的技术特征的, 法院应认定被诉侵权技术方案构成侵权也就是说, 被诉侵权技术方案只有在全部覆盖相关专利权利要求中的全部 ( 或等同 ) 技术特征时, 才构成侵权 (2) 外观设计侵权应就争议外观设计的设计特征 ( 而非功能特征 ) 以整体效果来判定争议的外观设计是否侵权应以外观设计产品的用途 ( 可以参考简要说明国际外观设计分类表产品的功能以及销售使用情况 ) 来认定该等产品是否近似 (3) 现有技术 / 现有设计抗辩现有技术方案或设计是指在专利申请日前在国内外为公众所知的技术或设计若被诉 ( 落入专利权保护范围 ) 的全部技术特征, 与一项现有技术方案中的相应技术特征相同或无实质性差异的 ( 在外观设计的情况下, 为被诉设计与现有设计相同或无实质差异 ), 则被诉技术或设计应当认定为是现有技术 / 现有设计, 不构成侵权 3. 专利侵权赔偿配比原则侵犯专利权的赔偿数额应按以下顺序确定, 专利权人的实际损失因侵权所获得的利益可比的专利实施许可费以及法官确定的法定赔偿额专利司法解释明确规定因侵权所获得的利益仅限于因侵权行为所获得的利益, 指出因其他权利所产生的利益, 应当合理扣除世泽律师事务所是一家总部设在北京并在上海设有分所的中国律师事务所我所有经验丰富的知识产权团队, 并在一些重要的知识产权案件中赢得声誉我所密切关注中国法律的最新发展, 旨在为我们的客户提供最佳解决方案若您需要知识产权方面的法律意见或有任何相关问题, 请随时联系我们您也可以点击查阅我们过去的 Newsletter 非常感谢! 5

論法院作成出版品禁止發行之衡量標準

論法院作成出版品禁止發行之衡量標準論法院作成出版品禁止發行裁定之衡量標準 - 以日本實務及學說討論為中心 - A Study on the Stardard of Issuing a Preliminary Injunction -Comparative with the Japanese Practice and Theory- 詹融潔 Jung-Chieh Chan