 |
English
|
正體中文
|
简体中文
|
Post-Print筆數 : 27 |
Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51580159
Online Users : 705
|
|
|
Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81815
|
| Title: | The Doctrine of Equivalents and Interchangeability in the United States, Taiwan and China |
| Authors: | 張添榜;王立達;劉尚志
Chang, Tien-Pang;Wang, Li-dar;Liu, Shang-Jyh Liu |
| Contributors: | 法學院 |
| Keywords: | Doctrine of Equivalents;Interchangeability;Tri-partite Test;Triple Identity Test;Insubstantial Differences Test |
| Date: | 2013-12 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-03-04 17:34:55 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | The United States, Taiwan and China have similar systems for determining patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The courts in these countries apply the test of interchangeability in finding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. However, the courts in the United States, Taiwan and China evaluate interchangeability in different ways. In the United States, the interchangeability is one important factor for determining equivalent infringement in addition to the function, way and result factors in the triple identity test. Nevertheless, the court does not necessarily have to consider interchangeability and can’t rely only on the interchangeability factor to find equivalent infringement. In Taiwan, the triple identity test is a comprehensive test for determining equivalent infringement. Although interchangeability is not provided in the Guideline for Patent Infringement Analysis, some decisions by Taiwan’s Supreme Court treat the interchangeability as an independent and comprehensive test for finding equivalent infringement. In China, neither the SPC Provisions nor the SPC Interpretation provides interchangeability, but the Supreme People’s Court considered interchangeability in some of its decisions. The Court assessed the interchangeability by determining whether one skilled in the art could contemplate without creative work, followed the standard in the SPC Provisions and the SPC Interpretation, and treated the “creative work” as an necessary factor in addition to the function, way and result factors in the triple identity test for determining the equivalent infringement. |
| Relation: | GLOBAL LEGAL ISSUES 2013, 1, 217-239 |
| Data Type: | article |
| Appears in Collections: | [法律學系] 期刊論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 217239.pdf | | 920Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 1007 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement1.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.
