政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/81782
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 115256/146303 (79%)
造訪人次 : 54536431      線上人數 : 340
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81782


    題名: Qualification of Expert Witnesses in United States Patent Litigation: A Review of Federal Circuit Case Law Regarding Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
    其他題名: 論美國專利訴訟之專家證人資格─以美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院與聯邦證據規則第702條有關之判決為中心
    作者: 陳秉訓
    Chen, Ping-Hsun
    貢獻者: 科管智財所
    關鍵詞: Nonobviousness;Patent Litigation;Expert Witness;Rules of Evidence;Damages Calculation
    日期: 2014-06
    上傳時間: 2016-03-02 16:46:24 (UTC+8)
    摘要: Expert witnesses serve an important role in United States patent litigation. Patent litigation often involves complex technological issues. Technical experts are needed to help a judge interpret claim language or to assist a jury to understand patented technology or infringing products. When resolving the patentability issues, such as anticipation and obviousness, technical experts are good consultants for factfinders. Additionally, damages calculation requires knowledge of industries and financial or accounting theories. Damages experts must get in to resolve the issues of monetary remedies. While expert witnesses play an important role in patent litigation, fewer studies explore the relevant case law about the qualification of experts or the admissibility of expert opinions. So, this paper is intended to address Federal Circuit case law regarding those issues. While Title 35 of the United States Code speaks nothing about expert witnesses, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is the only statutory basis for the requirements of qualified experts. In this paper, the case law review begins by examining the judicial interpretation of Rule 702. Three U.S. Supreme Court cases and several Federal Circuit cases will be analyzed. Then, this paper focuses on two categories of experts: technical experts and damages experts. Cases related to either category will be discussed. While Rule 702 requires an expert to have “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,” it is opt to a district court judge to admit or exclude expert witnesses or expert opinions as evidence heard by a jury. Besides, the Federal Circuit’s review standard is an abuse of discretion. So, a district court judge usually has much leeway. Furthermore, based on the analysis of the Federal Circuit cases, this article provides legal principles or propositions related to expert testimony.
    關聯: 科技法學評論, 11(1), 155-220
    資料類型: article
    DOI 連結: http://dx.doi.org/10.3966/181130952014061101005
    DOI: 10.3966/181130952014061101005
    顯示於類別:[科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 期刊論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    407255.pdf367KbAdobe PDF2496檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋