專利法 epub pdf mobi txt 電子書 下載 2024
發表於2024-12-25
專利法 epub pdf mobi txt 電子書 下載 2024
本書是北京外國語大學法學精品教材“普通法案例教學係列”的一本,是針對中國學生,經過北京外國語大學法學院十多年課堂教學經驗的積纍,吸取國外法學教育方法中的有益成分的基礎上編寫而成的。共分為十四章,包括:概論、新穎性、實用性、非顯而易見性、可專利性主題、公開、權利要求、專利審查、授權後修改等專利前期確權工作的課題,以及侵權、救濟、許可、國際申請、發展現狀等後期維權工作的內容。
鄭小軍,北京外國語大學法學院創始人之一,於2001年從美國迴國,擔任北外法學教育的創始工作,並從事英文法律教學工作至今,所授課程包括:英美法概論、英文法律寫作、模擬法庭、知識産權概論、商標法、專利法、英美財産法和侵權法以及美國憲法學。
鄭小軍老師曾在中國國際貿易促進委員會仲裁委員會和商標代理部工作,代錶中國首次齣席國際工業産權大會和許可證執行人會議,完成多項重大和具有曆史性案件,為中國商標法律的發展和完善做齣過獨到的貢獻。鄭小軍老師自1989年至2001年在美國紐約和新罕布什爾州工作學習達12年,主要從事商標代理和谘詢工作,並於1995年在富蘭剋林法學院獲得知識産權碩士學位。
自2001年從事教學工作以來,鄭小軍老師為推進法律英語教學不遺餘力,經常參加各種相關學術活動、發錶有關論文,並給全國各高校法律英語教師提供培訓課程,廣受好評。
Table of Contents
Chapter Ⅰ?GENERAL INTRODUCTION1
A. Brief Note on American Legal System1
B. Intellectual Property Law and Patents2
Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.2
C. Justification of Patent System7
D. Applicable Law 8
E. Forums and Jurisdiction10
Chapter Ⅱ?NOVELTY11
A. Introduction11
B. Public Sale16
Pennock v. Dialogue16
C. Use in Public21
Egbert v. Lippmann21
D. Printed Publication24
In re Hall24
Chapter Ⅲ?UTILITY29
A. Introduction29
Lewell v. Lewis29
B. Chemical Compound31
Brenner, Commissioner of Patents v. Manson31
In re Brana37
C. Immorality45
Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc.45
Chapter Ⅳ?NONOBVIOUSNESS51
A. Introduction51
Hotchkiss v. Greenwood52
B. Obviousness Test56
Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City56
C. Motivation to Combine Prior Arts65
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.65
Chapter Ⅴ?PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER71
A. Introduction71
Diamond v. Chakrabarty72
B. Computer Programs81
In The Matter Of Application By Fujitsu81
C. Business Methods86
In re Bilski86
Bilski v. Kappos100
D. Laws of Nature102
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.102
Chapter Ⅵ?DISCLOSURE111
A. Introduction111
B. Enablement112
O’Reilly v. Morse112
C. Written Description118
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company118
D. Best Mode Requirement131
Chapter Ⅶ?CLAIMS133
A. Introduction133
B. Claim Structure137
C. Types of Claim140
Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.143
D. Claiming Technique148
Ex Parte Fressola148
E. Claim Construction151
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.152
Chapter Ⅷ?PATENT PROSECUTION159
A. Introduction159
B. Preparing and Filing Patent Applications164
Kingsdown Medical Consultants Ltd. v. Hollister Inc.164
C. Examination168
D. Docketing169
Chapter Ⅸ?POST-ISSUANCE CORRECTION171
A. Introduction171
B. Certificate of Correction171
C. Reissue172
Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing Inc.174
D. Reexamination179
Third-Party Opposition of Patent Issuance180
Chapter Ⅹ?PATENT INFRINGEMENT187
A. Introduction187
B. Literary Meaning of Claim Language190
Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown190
C. Indirect Infringement196
Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp.196
Microsoft Corporation v. AT&T; Corp.201
D. Contributory Infringement & Patent Misuse210
Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.210
E. Infringing Use217
Centillion Data Systems v. Qwest Communications International217
F. Doctrine of Equivalents and Its Limitations224
Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc.224
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.230
Chapter Ⅺ?DEFENSE TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT239
A. Introduction239
B. Noninfringement241
C. Invalidity241
D. Unenforceability242
A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.242
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.252
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.256
E. Patent Misuse and Antitrust Counterclaims261
F. Other Defenses261
Chapter Ⅻ?REMEDIES263
A. Introduction263
B. Compensatory Damages263
C. Injunctions264
City of Milwaukee v. Activated Sludge, Inc.264
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.266
D. Punitive Damages and Attorney Fee270
In re Seagate Technology, LLC270
Chapter ⅫⅠ?PATENT LICENSING275
A. Introduction275
B. Litigation and Settlement276
C. Compulsory Licensing277
D. Licensor Repudiation and Assignor Estoppel278
E. Antitrust Violations279
U.S. Philips Corp. v. International Trade Commission279
F.T.C. v. Activis, Inc.294
Chapter ⅩⅣ?CURRENT ISSUES AND DEVELOPMENT307
A. Introduction307
B. Patent Trolling307
First-of-Its-Kind Settlement between NY and Patent Troll
Establishes Guidelines to Prevent Deceptive and Exploitative
Patent Assertion Conduct307
C. Parallel Import, Grey Market, and Exhaustion Doctrines (Domestic & International Exhaustion)311
Adams v. Burke311
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electronics Co.316
D. Unfair Trade Practices (Patent) Investigation at USITC320
Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.
United States Supreme court, 1989
489 U.S. 141
O’CONNOR, JUSTICE.
Article I, § 8, cl. 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The Patent Clause itself reflects a balance between the need to encourage innovation and the avoidance of monopolies which stifle competition without any concomitant advance in the “Progress of Science and useful Arts.” As we have noted in the past, the Clause contains both a grant of power and certain limitations upon the exercise of that. Congress may not create patent monopolies of unlimited duration, nor may it “authorize the issuance of patents whose effects are to remove existent knowledge from the public domain, or to restrict free access to materials already available.” Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966).
From their inception, the federal patent laws have embodied a careful balance between the need to promote innovation and the recognition that imitation and refinement through imitation are both necessary to invention itself and the very lifeblood of a competitive economy. Soon after the adoption of the Constitution, the First Congress enacted the Patent Act of 1790, which allowed the grant of a limited monopoly of 14 years to any applicant that “hath … invented or discovered any useful art, manufacture, … or device, or any improvement therein not before known or used.” In addition to novelty, the 1790 Act required that the invention be “sufficiently useful and important” to merit the 14-year right of exclusion. Section 2 of the Act required that the patentee deposit with the Secretary of State, a specification and if possible a model of the new invention, “which specification shall be so particular, and said models so exact, as not only to distinguish the invention or discovery from other things before known and used, but also to enable a workman or other person skilled in the art or manufacture … to make, construct, or use the same, to the end that the public may have the full benefit thereof, after the expiration of the patent term.”
The first Patent Act established an agency known by self-designation as the “Commissioners for the promotion of Useful Arts,” composed of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Department of War, and the Attorney General, any two of whom could grant a patent. Thomas Jefferson was the first Secretary of State, and the driving force behind early federal patent policy. For Jefferson, a central tenet of the patent system in a free market economy was that “a machine of which we were possessed, might be applied by every man to any use of which it is susceptible.” 13 Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 335 (Memorial ed. 1904). He viewed a grant of patent rights in an idea already disclosed to the public as akin to an ex post facto law, “obstructing others in the use of what they possessed before.” Jefferson also played a large role in the drafting of our Nation’s second Patent Act, which became law in 1793. The Patent Act of 1793 carried over the requirement that the subject of a patent application be “not known or used before the application.” A defen
專利法 epub pdf mobi txt 電子書 下載 2024
專利法 下載 epub mobi pdf txt 電子書專利法 mobi pdf epub txt 電子書 下載 2024
專利法 epub pdf mobi txt 電子書 下載評分
評分
評分
評分
評分
評分
評分
評分
專利法 epub pdf mobi txt 電子書 下載 2024