权利要求撰写错误对专利保护范围的影响

发布时间：2018-06-09 21:20

本文选题：权利要求 + 撰写错误　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：在我国的专利保护领域，专利权保护范围的确定直接取决于权利要求书，所以权利要求的撰写质量将会对专利权的保护范围产生很大的影响。由于专利申请本身技术和法律层面知识的复杂性，以及语言表达的局限性和人类认知的有限性等限制，权利要求的撰写往往难以尽善尽美，专利保护范围也难以得到最终的确定。本文通过对最高人民法院颁布的2012年知识产权十大创新案件中“秦邦公司专利纠纷案”的分析和讨论，试图明确案件所涉及的基础概念和法律关系，探究法院在处理案件时所遵循的法理依据，进而为以后类似案件的处理提供一些指导。本文共分为三个部分。第一部分是案情简介及争议焦点。本文案例选自2012年知识产权十大创新案。本文简要地回顾案件的始末，以各级法院不同法理考量为基础，发现本案及相似案例可能涉及到的争议焦点为：如果权利要求撰写存在错误，那么这种撰写错误是否会对专利保护范围产生影响及产生何种影响? 第二部分是权利要求撰写的不同错误类型。本文将权利要求撰写的错误类型分为三类：1.权利要求撰写文字错误；2.权利要求遗漏说明书中公开的部分技术方案；3.无法界定专利保护范围。对于其中的权利要求撰写文字错误，又进行再次划分：明显的文字错误，歧义性文字错误，术语使用错误。本文将错误类型进行区分的同时，引用到了大量的案例，使文中提到的错误类型更加明确。第三部分是权利要求撰写错误对专利保护范围的影响。本文针对权利要求撰写的不同错误类型，，对应分析其对专利保护范围产生的影响，从理论上找到判断的依据。结语部分结合不同的权利要求撰写错误类型，分析我国对专利保护的双重管理体制，同时为提高专利申请文件的撰写质量建言。本文案例所体现的实质还是权利要求撰写质量的问题。正因为一审、二审法院认定权利要求用语存在错误，进而认为专利保护范围不明确，才使得权利要求撰写错误对专利保护范围的影响凸显出来。只有采取措施切实提高权利要求的撰写质量，才会使专利保护范围尽量得以明确。
[Abstract]:In the field of patent protection in China, the determination of the scope of patent protection directly depends on the claim, so the quality of the writing of the claim will have a great influence on the scope of the patent protection. Because of the complexity of the technical and legal knowledge of the patent application itself, the limitations of the language expression and the limited human cognition. The limitation of rights is not always perfect, and the scope of patent protection is difficult to be determined.
Through the analysis and discussion of the "Qin state patent dispute case" in the ten major innovative cases of intellectual property rights issued by the Supreme People's court in 2012, this paper tries to clarify the basic concepts and legal relations involved in the case, and explore the legal basis of the court in dealing with the case, and then provide some references for the treatment of similar cases in the future. Guide.
This article is divided into three parts. The first part is the brief introduction of the case and the focus of the dispute. This case is selected from the ten major innovation cases of intellectual property in 2012. This article briefly reviews the beginning and end of the case, based on the different jurisprudence of the courts at all levels, and finds that the case and similar cases may involve the focus of the controversy: if the claim is written. Mistake, will this writing error affect the scope of patent protection and what effect will it have?
The second part is the different types of errors written by the claims. This article divides the wrong types written by the claims into three categories: 1. right requires writing errors; 2. rights require missing part of the technical scheme disclosed in the instructions; 3. can not define the scope of the patent protection. Second division: obvious text errors, ambiguous text errors, and terminology use errors. This article distinguishes the types of errors and quotes a large number of cases, making the types of errors mentioned more clearly.
The third part is the influence of the right requirement writing error on the scope of patent protection. This paper, in view of the different types of error written by the claim, analyses its influence on the scope of patent protection, and finds the basis of the judgment in theory.
The conclusion part combines different types of rights to write wrong types, analyzes the dual management system of patent protection in China, and improves the quality of patent application documents.
The essence of this case is the question of the quality of the writing of rights. It is precisely because of first instance that the court of second instance claims that there is a mistake in the claim, and then that the scope of the patent protection is not clear, the influence of the writing error on the scope of the patent protection is highlighted. Only measures are taken to improve the compose of the rights. The quality of patent will make the scope of patent protection as clear as possible.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D923.42

【参考文献】