功能性限定权利要求相关问题探讨
发布时间：2018-09-06 09:29
【摘要】：功能性限定权利要求的审查以及该类侵权案件的审判的核心都是保护范围的确定。负责我国专利审查工作的国家知识产权局依据《审查指南》，将功能性限定权利要求的保护范围解释为覆盖能够实现所述功能的所有实施方式。负责专利侵权案件审判工作的人民法院依据《关于审理侵犯专利权纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的解释》，将功能性限定权利要求的保护范围解释为，结合说明书和附图描述的该功能性限定的技术特征的具体实施方式及其等同方式。两种不同的解释方式造成了我国在功能性限定权利要求保护范围的解释上无法形成统一的规定。损害了专利权人和公众的利益，影响了《专利法》的严肃性。 在功能性限定权利要求的审查和保护范围的解释问题上，美国和欧洲专利局都已经形成自己的一套成熟规定。美国对功能性限定权利要求规定了特殊的撰写方式，在实质审查时不进行说明书支持方面的审查。并将其保护范围解释为说明书实施例及其等同方式，具体保护范围由法院在侵权审判时再做确定。欧洲专利局规定功能性限定权利要求只适用于本领域技术人员在不需付出创造性劳动的条件下就可以确定实现该功能的技术手段的情况下。对于该类权利要求没有规定特殊的审查要求。 通过与以上两种规定相比较，可以看出，我国在功能性限定权利要求保护范围的解释问题上，应当依据折衷原则，将其解释为覆盖实现该功能的所有方式。在功能性限定的撰写方式的适用问题上，应当规定发明点在于技术问题的提出或者功能性模块的架构时，可以使用功能性限定的撰写方式。并且在实质审查时应当要求对应的说明书实施例具有本领域技术人员容易想到的替代方式。对于功能性限定权利要求的侵权审判，不再适用“等同原则”。 本文提出的具体解决方案，能够将国家知识产权局和人民法院在功能性限定权利要求保护范围问题上的分歧统一起来。有利于专利权人和社会公众对功能性限定权利要求保护范围的明确。
[Abstract]:The determination of the scope of protection is the core of the examination of functional limitation claims and the trial of such infringement cases. According to the Guide to Review, the State intellectual property Office, which is in charge of patent examination in China, interprets the scope of protection of functional limitation claims as covering all implementation modes that can achieve the said functions. The people's court responsible for the trial of patent infringement cases, in accordance with the interpretation of certain issues concerning the application of law in adjudicating patent infringement disputes, interprets the functional limitation of the scope of protection of claims as: Specific embodiments and their equivalents of the functionally defined technical features described in the specification and the drawings. Two different ways of interpretation make our country unable to form a unified stipulation on the interpretation of functional limitation of the scope of protection of claims. It damages the interests of the patentee and the public, and affects the seriousness of the Patent Law. Both the United States and the European Patent Office have developed their own set of mature regulations on the issue of functional limitation of claims and interpretation of the scope of protection. In the United States, functional qualification claims are written in a special way and are not reviewed in terms of specification support at the time of substantive review. The scope of protection is interpreted as an embodiment of the specification and its equivalent, and the specific scope of protection is determined by the court in the trial of infringement. The European Patent Office stipulates that functional limitation claims apply only to cases where technical personnel in the field can determine the technical means to achieve this function without the need for creative labour. There is no special review requirement for such claims. By comparing with the above two provisions, it can be seen that the interpretation of functional limitation of the scope of protection of claims in China should be interpreted as covering all the ways to achieve this function according to the compromise principle. With regard to the application of functional defined writing methods, it should be stipulated that the invention should be based on the presentation of technical problems or the architecture of functional modules, and that functional qualified writing methods should be used. And the corresponding specification embodiments should be required at the time of substantive review to have alternatives that are readily available to those skilled in the art. The principle of equivalence is no longer applicable to tort trials of functional limitation claims. The concrete solution proposed in this paper can unify the differences between the State intellectual property Office and the people's Court on the issue of functional limitation of the scope of protection of claims. It is beneficial to the patentee and the public to define the scope of protection of functional claims.
【学位授予单位】：中国社会科学院研究生院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.42
本文编号：2225923
[Abstract]:The determination of the scope of protection is the core of the examination of functional limitation claims and the trial of such infringement cases. According to the Guide to Review, the State intellectual property Office, which is in charge of patent examination in China, interprets the scope of protection of functional limitation claims as covering all implementation modes that can achieve the said functions. The people's court responsible for the trial of patent infringement cases, in accordance with the interpretation of certain issues concerning the application of law in adjudicating patent infringement disputes, interprets the functional limitation of the scope of protection of claims as: Specific embodiments and their equivalents of the functionally defined technical features described in the specification and the drawings. Two different ways of interpretation make our country unable to form a unified stipulation on the interpretation of functional limitation of the scope of protection of claims. It damages the interests of the patentee and the public, and affects the seriousness of the Patent Law. Both the United States and the European Patent Office have developed their own set of mature regulations on the issue of functional limitation of claims and interpretation of the scope of protection. In the United States, functional qualification claims are written in a special way and are not reviewed in terms of specification support at the time of substantive review. The scope of protection is interpreted as an embodiment of the specification and its equivalent, and the specific scope of protection is determined by the court in the trial of infringement. The European Patent Office stipulates that functional limitation claims apply only to cases where technical personnel in the field can determine the technical means to achieve this function without the need for creative labour. There is no special review requirement for such claims. By comparing with the above two provisions, it can be seen that the interpretation of functional limitation of the scope of protection of claims in China should be interpreted as covering all the ways to achieve this function according to the compromise principle. With regard to the application of functional defined writing methods, it should be stipulated that the invention should be based on the presentation of technical problems or the architecture of functional modules, and that functional qualified writing methods should be used. And the corresponding specification embodiments should be required at the time of substantive review to have alternatives that are readily available to those skilled in the art. The principle of equivalence is no longer applicable to tort trials of functional limitation claims. The concrete solution proposed in this paper can unify the differences between the State intellectual property Office and the people's Court on the issue of functional limitation of the scope of protection of claims. It is beneficial to the patentee and the public to define the scope of protection of functional claims.
【学位授予单位】：中国社会科学院研究生院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.42
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前6条
1 王阜东;;美国法院专利权利要求解释及侵权判定处理实例分析[J];中国发明与专利;2009年06期
2 唐田田;;美国专利法判例选析 功能性权利要求的认定标准和内部证据在侵权判定中的处理原则[J];中国发明与专利;2009年10期
3 张鹏;;论功能性限定权利要求保护范围的解释——以我国产业发展现状为视角[J];中国发明与专利;2010年07期
4 肖志远;;解读专利制度的产业政策蕴含[J];法学杂志;2009年11期
5 胡平仁;;法律政策学的学科定位与理论基础[J];湖湘论坛;2010年02期
6 崔鑫生;;论美国专利与竞争政策平衡的措施[J];税务与经济;2007年04期
，本文编号：2225923
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2225923.html
