美國非顯而易見性判斷標準及對我國的啟示
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-18 20:03
【摘要】： 美國聯(lián)邦上訴巡回法院設(shè)立于1982年,其擁有跨地區(qū)的專利專屬管轄權(quán)。其在成立之初,就一直采用TSM規(guī)則,但是由于其在適用TSM規(guī)則的僵化、刻板,導致了非顯而易見性的標準過低,并由此引發(fā)了美國專利制度中的一系列問題。KSR案是聯(lián)邦上訴法院僵化適用TSM規(guī)則的典型案例,為改變非顯而易見性的判斷標準提供了契機。 本文從KSR案著手,比較KSR案前后美國法院在專利訴訟中適用非顯而易見性判斷的不同標準。在此基礎(chǔ)上,進一步結(jié)合我國現(xiàn)有專利制度的創(chuàng)造性的判斷存在的問題,來對完善我國專利法中創(chuàng)造性判斷標準適用提出一些自己的想法和建議。 文章共分為導言、正文、結(jié)論三個部分。導言部分,說明撰寫本文的目的,即希望通過對KSR案的分析,特別是KSR案所確立的非顯而易見性判斷標準的分析,總結(jié)并提出一些建議來完善我國專利法中創(chuàng)造性判斷。 正文部分由三章組成: 第一章,非顯而易見性。本章介紹了美國非顯而易見性的歷史發(fā)展,對于美國歷史上各個階段的非顯而易見性的判斷進行了簡單的梳理。并對KSR案之前TSM規(guī)則的內(nèi)容和聯(lián)邦上訴巡回法院在運用TSM規(guī)則時的錯誤做法進行了剖析。 第二章,KSR案推理過程與KSR標準。本章介紹了自1966年美國最高法院對格拉漢姆一案作出判決之后,再次就專利非顯而易見性的判斷問題表明其立場的KSR案。本章重點介紹了美國最高法院在KSR案中的所表達出來的關(guān)于專利非顯而易見性判斷的觀點和態(tài)度,并與之前聯(lián)邦上訴巡回法院所采用的非顯而易見性判斷規(guī)則進行了比較,從而得出有關(guān)美國專利創(chuàng)造性判斷規(guī)則的變化發(fā)展。 第三章,完善我國專利訴訟中創(chuàng)造性的判斷。本章介紹了我國專利法及審查指南對于創(chuàng)造性和創(chuàng)造性判斷的規(guī)定,以及在實踐中所產(chǎn)生的問題。筆者通過分析造成我國專利授權(quán)數(shù)量大,整體質(zhì)量較低的原因,并結(jié)合對KSR案等美國專利訴訟司法判例的總結(jié),對我國完善我國專利訴訟中創(chuàng)造性判斷提出一些建議。 最后,結(jié)論部分筆者對文章進行了歸納、總結(jié)。
[Abstract]:The United States Federal Appeals Circuit Court, established in 1982, has cross-regional patent exclusive jurisdiction. At the beginning of its existence, it has been using TSM rules, but because of its rigid and rigid application of TSM rules, the standard of non-obviousness is too low. The case is a typical case in which the federal appeals court rigidly applies the TSM rules, which provides an opportunity to change the judgment standard of non-obviousness. Starting from KSR case, this paper compares the different standards of non-obvious judgment applied by American courts in patent litigation before and after KSR case. On this basis, the author puts forward some ideas and suggestions on how to perfect the criteria of creative judgment in patent law by combining the problems existing in the creative judgment of the existing patent system in our country. The article is divided into three parts: introduction, text and conclusion. The introduction explains the purpose of writing this article, that is, through the analysis of the KSR case, especially the analysis of the non-obvious judgment standard established in the KSR case, the author summarizes and puts forward some suggestions to perfect the creative judgment in the patent law of our country. The text is composed of three chapters: chapter one, non-obviousness. This chapter introduces the historical development of non-obviousness in the United States, and makes a brief review of the judgment of non-obviousness in all stages of American history. It also analyzes the content of TSM rules before KSR case and the wrong practices of the Federal Appeals Circuit Court in applying TSM rules. The second chapter is about the case reasoning process and KSR standard. This chapter introduces the KSR case, which has once again stated its position on the judgment of patent non-obviousness since the Supreme Court of the United States rendered its judgment in the Graham case in 1966. This chapter focuses on the views and attitudes expressed by the United States Supreme Court in the KSR case on the judgment of patent non-obviousness, and compares it with the rule of non-obvious judgment adopted by the former Federal Appeals Circuit Court. From this, the author draws a conclusion about the change and development of the rules of patent creative judgment in the United States. The third chapter, perfect our country patent lawsuit in the creative judgment. This chapter introduces the provisions of China's patent law and review guidelines for creativity and creative judgment, as well as the problems arising in practice. Based on the analysis of the reasons for the large number of patent authorizations and the low overall quality in China and the summary of the judicial cases of American patent litigation such as the KSR case, the author puts forward some suggestions for our country to perfect the creative judgment in patent litigation in our country. Finally, the conclusion part of the author summarized the article.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D971.2;DD913;D923.42
本文編號：2190536
[Abstract]:The United States Federal Appeals Circuit Court, established in 1982, has cross-regional patent exclusive jurisdiction. At the beginning of its existence, it has been using TSM rules, but because of its rigid and rigid application of TSM rules, the standard of non-obviousness is too low. The case is a typical case in which the federal appeals court rigidly applies the TSM rules, which provides an opportunity to change the judgment standard of non-obviousness. Starting from KSR case, this paper compares the different standards of non-obvious judgment applied by American courts in patent litigation before and after KSR case. On this basis, the author puts forward some ideas and suggestions on how to perfect the criteria of creative judgment in patent law by combining the problems existing in the creative judgment of the existing patent system in our country. The article is divided into three parts: introduction, text and conclusion. The introduction explains the purpose of writing this article, that is, through the analysis of the KSR case, especially the analysis of the non-obvious judgment standard established in the KSR case, the author summarizes and puts forward some suggestions to perfect the creative judgment in the patent law of our country. The text is composed of three chapters: chapter one, non-obviousness. This chapter introduces the historical development of non-obviousness in the United States, and makes a brief review of the judgment of non-obviousness in all stages of American history. It also analyzes the content of TSM rules before KSR case and the wrong practices of the Federal Appeals Circuit Court in applying TSM rules. The second chapter is about the case reasoning process and KSR standard. This chapter introduces the KSR case, which has once again stated its position on the judgment of patent non-obviousness since the Supreme Court of the United States rendered its judgment in the Graham case in 1966. This chapter focuses on the views and attitudes expressed by the United States Supreme Court in the KSR case on the judgment of patent non-obviousness, and compares it with the rule of non-obvious judgment adopted by the former Federal Appeals Circuit Court. From this, the author draws a conclusion about the change and development of the rules of patent creative judgment in the United States. The third chapter, perfect our country patent lawsuit in the creative judgment. This chapter introduces the provisions of China's patent law and review guidelines for creativity and creative judgment, as well as the problems arising in practice. Based on the analysis of the reasons for the large number of patent authorizations and the low overall quality in China and the summary of the judicial cases of American patent litigation such as the KSR case, the author puts forward some suggestions for our country to perfect the creative judgment in patent litigation in our country. Finally, the conclusion part of the author summarized the article.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D971.2;DD913;D923.42
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條
1 魯燦;詹銳;;從eBay案看美國專利保護趨勢——兼論我國專利“停止侵權(quán)”責任方式[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2006年09期
2 劉恩東;;利益集團與美國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)政策[J];國際資料信息;2007年09期
3 高金旺;;美國專利保護趨勢研究[J];河南社會科學;2007年05期
4 管煜武;單曉光;;美國親專利政策與高科技產(chǎn)業(yè)競爭力[J];科學學研究;2007年04期
5 和育東;方慧聰;;專利創(chuàng)造性客觀化問題研究[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年02期
相關(guān)會議論文 前1條
1 方慧聰;;KSR案與美國專利審查指南的最新修改[A];專利法研究（2007）[C];2008年
相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前2條
1 李金芳;美國發(fā)明專利非顯而易見性判斷標準改革及其啟示[D];華東政法大學;2008年
2 張英;美國KSR案對我國專利法上創(chuàng)造性判斷的啟示[D];西南政法大學;2009年
，本文編號：2190536
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/fashilw/2190536.html
