美国非显而易见性判断标准及对我国的启示
发布时间：2018-08-18 20:03
【摘要】： 美国联邦上诉巡回法院设立于1982年,其拥有跨地区的专利专属管辖权。其在成立之初,就一直采用TSM规则,但是由于其在适用TSM规则的僵化、刻板,导致了非显而易见性的标准过低,并由此引发了美国专利制度中的一系列问题。KSR案是联邦上诉法院僵化适用TSM规则的典型案例,为改变非显而易见性的判断标准提供了契机。 本文从KSR案着手,比较KSR案前后美国法院在专利诉讼中适用非显而易见性判断的不同标准。在此基础上,进一步结合我国现有专利制度的创造性的判断存在的问题,来对完善我国专利法中创造性判断标准适用提出一些自己的想法和建议。 文章共分为导言、正文、结论三个部分。导言部分,说明撰写本文的目的,即希望通过对KSR案的分析,特别是KSR案所确立的非显而易见性判断标准的分析,总结并提出一些建议来完善我国专利法中创造性判断。 正文部分由三章组成: 第一章,非显而易见性。本章介绍了美国非显而易见性的历史发展,对于美国历史上各个阶段的非显而易见性的判断进行了简单的梳理。并对KSR案之前TSM规则的内容和联邦上诉巡回法院在运用TSM规则时的错误做法进行了剖析。 第二章,KSR案推理过程与KSR标准。本章介绍了自1966年美国最高法院对格拉汉姆一案作出判决之后,再次就专利非显而易见性的判断问题表明其立场的KSR案。本章重点介绍了美国最高法院在KSR案中的所表达出来的关于专利非显而易见性判断的观点和态度,并与之前联邦上诉巡回法院所采用的非显而易见性判断规则进行了比较,从而得出有关美国专利创造性判断规则的变化发展。 第三章,完善我国专利诉讼中创造性的判断。本章介绍了我国专利法及审查指南对于创造性和创造性判断的规定,以及在实践中所产生的问题。笔者通过分析造成我国专利授权数量大,整体质量较低的原因,并结合对KSR案等美国专利诉讼司法判例的总结,对我国完善我国专利诉讼中创造性判断提出一些建议。 最后,结论部分笔者对文章进行了归纳、总结。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D971.2;DD913;D923.42
本文编号：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.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D971.2;DD913;D923.42
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前5条
1 鲁灿;詹锐;;从eBay案看美国专利保护趋势——兼论我国专利“停止侵权”责任方式[J];电子知识产权;2006年09期
2 刘恩东;;利益集团与美国知识产权政策[J];国际资料信息;2007年09期
3 高金旺;;美国专利保护趋势研究[J];河南社会科学;2007年05期
4 管煜武;单晓光;;美国亲专利政策与高科技产业竞争力[J];科学学研究;2007年04期
5 和育东;方慧聪;;专利创造性客观化问题研究[J];知识产权;2007年02期
相关会议论文 前1条
1 方慧聪;;KSR案与美国专利审查指南的最新修改[A];专利法研究（2007）[C];2008年
相关硕士学位论文 前2条
1 李金芳;美国发明专利非显而易见性判断标准改革及其启示[D];华东政法大学;2008年
2 张英;美国KSR案对我国专利法上创造性判断的启示[D];西南政法大学;2009年
，本文编号：2190536
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/fashilw/2190536.html
