Comparative Study on Patent Claim Interpretation

定　價：￥79.00

作　者：	彭哲著
出版社：	知識產(chǎn)權出版社
叢編項：
標　簽：	暫缺

購買這本書可以去

京東 (￥68.70)

ISBN：	9787513074179	出版時間：	2021-01-01	包裝：	平裝
開本：	16開	頁數(shù)：	192	字數(shù)：

內容簡介

　　本書著重對中美兩國的專利權利要求解釋相關法律進行比較研究，探討兩國法律的異同。專利的權利要求界定了專利權的范圍，也是在專利侵權糾紛中爭議的核心。解釋權利要求以確定專利的范圍是專利侵權判定中最關鍵的一步。本書對于兩國法律進行了功能性的比較。雖然美國專利法和中國專利法的概念框架大相徑庭，權利解釋規(guī)則的表述和術語差異較大，但是有些規(guī)則的內容實質上是一致的。中美兩國也有一些在表述上非常相似的規(guī)則，但是這些規(guī)則在司法適用卻有所不同，從而會給出不同的專利保護范圍。在比較研究的基礎上，以平衡激勵創(chuàng)新和維護公共利益為原則，提出了對專利權利要求立法和司法的建議。

作者簡介

　　彭哲，現(xiàn)任山東大學法學院副研究員。2012獲得美國華盛頓大學法學院法學博士學位。2012年在日本明治大學在中山信宏教授的科研團隊中擔任共同研究員職位，與來自各國的知識產(chǎn)權法學者進行合作研究。2013年就職于山東大學法學院，任副研究員。兼任山東省版權教學科研基地副主任、威海仲裁委員會仲裁員。先后發(fā)表A Panacea for Inequitable Conduct Problems or Kingsdown version 2.0？ The Therasense Decision and a Look into the Future of U.S. PatentLaw Reform， 16 Va. J.L. & Tech. 373 （2011）; Legislative Updates： China：Patent Law Amendment of 2008， CASRIP Newsletter， Vol. 16（1）；Case Summary： Amado v. Microsoft Corp. CASRIP Newsletter， Vol. 15 （3）等論文。美國聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院于2012年3月在My Space vs. Graphone Corporation 判例中引用了《A Panacea for Inequitable Conduct Problems or Kingsdown version 2.0？》一文。作為項目主持人承擔《行政監(jiān)管對知識產(chǎn)權法律制度的影響》課題（司法部項目），《山東省藥品創(chuàng)新的知識產(chǎn)權法律保障機制研究》（山東省社科項目），《大班教學：美國法學院的經(jīng)驗考察與借鑒》（山東大學教學促進與教師發(fā)展基金項目）。主講《知識產(chǎn)權法（全英文）》、《中國知識產(chǎn)權法（全英文，留學生課程）》等課程。

圖書目錄

Contents
Preface i
Chapter I?U.S. Claim Interpretation: Procedural Law
A. U.S. Court System in General: Lawyers, Judges, Technical Experts
1. Claim Interpretation by Judges
2. Lawyers
3. Technical Experts
B. Jurisdiction
C. Evidence: Intrinsic Evidence vs. Extrinsic Evidence
1. Conflict Precedent Before Phillips
2. Phillips en banc Decision
3. The Hierarchy of the Evidence
4. How to Understand the “Hierarchy”
D. First Instance: Two Step Analysis
E. Second Instance: Appellate Review Standard
1. A Split among Federal Circuit Judges after Markman II
2. Cybor: Uniform Federal Circuit Case Law
3. Disagreements Continued after Cybor
4. The Supreme Court Teva Decision
F. Procedures for Determining the Doctrine of Equivalents
Chapter II?Chinese Claim Interpretation: Procedure Law
A. Chinese Court System in General
1. Trial by Judges
2. Lawyers
3. Technical Experts in Claim Interpretation
B. Evidence
C. Jurisdiction
D. First Instance—One step analysis
E. Second Instance: Appellate Review Standard
F. Procedures for Determining Doctrine of Equivalents
Chapter III?U.S. Claim Interpretation: Substantive Law
A. Source of Law
1. Statutes
2. Case Law
B. Structure of US Claims
C. Fundamental Rules
1. Claim Defines the Scope of Patent
2. All Elements Rule
3. Specifications
4. Prosecution History
5. PHOSITA—Philips
D. Defining Literal Claim Scope
1. Canons
2. Special Types of Claims
E. Expanding the Literal Claim Scope: Doctrine of Equivalents
1. Underlying Policy
2. Elements to Establish the Doctrine of Equivalents
3. Limitation to the Doctrine of Equivalents
Chapter IV?Chinese Claim Interpretation: Substantive Law
A. Sources of Law
1. Statute 080
2. The “Judge-Made Statute”: Judicial Interpretation
3. Case Law
B. Fundamental Rules
1. Central Role of Claims
2. The “All Feature” Rule
3. Description and Drawings
4. Prosecution History: The Estoppel Principle
5. PHOSITA—2009 and 2016 Judicial Interpretation
C. Structure of a Chinese Patent
D. Defining the Literal Claim Scope
1. Canons of Claim Interpretation
2. Special Types of Claims
E. The Doctrine of Equivalents
1. Elements to Establish the Doctrine of Equivalents
2. Limitation of Doctrine Equivalents: Dedication Principle
3. Limitation to the Doctrine of Equivalents: Estoppel Principle
Chapter V?Comparative Analysis
A. Policy
1. United States
2. China
B. Rules
1. Procedure
2. Substantive Law
Conclusion
Table of Cases and Other Authorities
Bibliography