政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/54989

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/54989

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | Items with full text/Total items : 113656/144643 (79%)
Visitors : 51722801 Online Users : 592

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

Scope

please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results

please goto advance search for comprehansive author search

Adv. Search

Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer

Goto mobile version

政大典藏 > College of Commerce > Graduate Institute of Intellectual Property > Theses > Item 140.119/54989

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54989

Title:	從美國專利法析論非顯而易知性之相關爭議 A study on non-obviousness controversies in view of American patent law
Authors:	黃柏維 Huang, Po Wei
Contributors:	馮震宇 Fong, Jerry G. 黃柏維 Huang, Po Wei
Keywords:	非顯而易知性進步性 KSR TSM In re Kubin 顯可嘗試 Non-obviousness Inventive Step KSR TSM In re Kubin Obvious to Try
Date:	2011
Issue Date:	2012-10-30 14:35:12 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	專利制度是知識經濟時代最為重要的一種智慧財產權形式，不但對於技術創新居功厥偉，在國際商業活動中也占有極具份量的地位。而在取得專利的三大要件中，以非顯而易知性（即我國進步性）最為棘手，蓋其本身屬於不確定之法律概念，而容有裁量空間。非顯而易知性發軔於美國判例法，其後由實務主導其發展。在指標性案例KSR判決中，最高法院揭示了非顯而易知性的審查架構，以Graham四要件法則為根柢，並輔以顯可嘗試原則及彈性運用的TSM檢測法，整體而言KSR判決提高了非顯而易知性的適格門檻。在後KSR時代，CAFC在機械工業、醫藥品與生物科技等領域分別依不同程度適用KSR見解。2009年In re Kubin案確認KSR見解可適用於不可預測性較高之基因生技領域，近幾年來顯可嘗試原則也獲得高度重視。相較而言，我國進步性審查主要依據智慧財產局所制定的專利審查基準，但行政審查常有過於直觀簡略之嫌；法院判決則在「發明所屬領域中具通常技術者之技術水準」與「該領域具通常技術者參酌先前技術所揭露之內容及申請時的通常知識，是否能所能輕易完成系爭申請發明之整體」此兩步驟的論證上較為欠缺，整體而言達成進步性結論之心證揭露程度不足，對於當事人有突襲性裁判之虞。本研究基於上述觀察所得，對美國與我國關於非顯而易知性概念之認知與實踐進行比對，並分別就審查實務面與產業因應面提出微薄建議，以期借鏡美國法經驗使我國未來實務操作更趨完善。 Patent system is one of the most important forms of intellectual property rights in the era of knowledge economy, not only indispensable for technological innovation, also of great influnce in the international business activities. Among the three requirements of patentability, “Non-obviousness” (ie, “Inventive Step” in Taiwan) is the most difficult to fulfill, due to the uncertainty of its legal concept and the room for discretion. Non-obviousness was carved out in the U.S. case law and continuously developed by the court rulings. In the benchmark case KSR v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court articulated that the examination framework of non-obviousness is based on Graham four factors, along with other principles like “Obvious to Try” and the TSM test in a more flexible way. In general, KSR lifted the eligibility threshold for non-obviousness. It has been applied in different degrees by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to various fields such as machinery industry, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology in the post-KSR era. Then it was recognized in 2009 In re Kubin case that the KSR opinion is applicable to the unpredictable field, gene biotechnology, for instance. Besides, the “Obvious to Try” principle has been gaining much attention in recent years. In comparison, both administrative and juducial examinations of inventive step in Taiwan are mainly based on the “Substantive examination guidelines for invention patent” issued by the Intellectual Property Office. However, the administrative review is often reckoned to be too intuitive and rough, and the court decisions are considered to be made with less expression on “the level of the PHOSITA” and “whether a PHOSITA with the reference to prior arts and common knowledge can complete the whole invention without difficulty.” In all, the lack of revealing the reasoning on the inventive step conclusion might expose the parties in danger of surprise judgements. Based on the above observations, this study compared the cognition and practice of non-obviousness both in the United States and in Taiwan, and as a result, presented some primary suggestions in light of the United States’ experience toward both the practice and industries, so that our inventive step examination practice in the future could be improved.
Reference:	一、中文文獻（一）專書余信達，論基因技術之可專利性－以人本價值與思維為中心，載：專利法制與實務論文集（一），2006年6月（原文載：智慧財產權月刊，67期，2004年7月）。陳文吟，我國專利制度之研究，2010年3月五版。陳智超，專利法理論與實務，2004年4月二版一刷。曾陳明汝、蔡明誠，兩岸暨歐美專利法，2009年1月修訂三版。馮震宇，序文，載：智慧財產法律與管理案例評析（八），2012年6月初版。黃文儀，專利申請案逐項審查之探討，載：專利法制與實務論文集（一），2006年6月（原文載：智慧財產權月刊，59期，2003年11月）。楊崇森，專利法理論與應用，2007年1月修訂二版。劉國讚，專利實務論，2009年4月初版。（二）論文邱詩茜，從專利獨占之制度目的設計角度定義公平交易法第四十五條之專利權正當行使行為－以美國法制為借鏡，國立政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文， 2006年6月。林芬瑜，基因專利對藥物基因體學發展之影響與因應－以生技製藥產業為例，天主教輔仁大學財經法律研究所碩士論文，2011年。胡閏祺，論美國專利法上非顯而易見性要件－以KSR v. Teleflex案為中心，國立中正大學財經法律學研究所碩士論文，2010年3月。張啟聰，發明專利要件「進步性」之研究，東吳大學法律研究所碩士論文，2002年。（三）期刊尹守信，淺析美國專利法上之非顯而易知性要件，智慧財產權月刊，84期，頁129，2005年12月。王道還，人類基因組計畫完成了，科學發展，365期，2003年5月。呂紹凡，組合發明之非顯而易見性－2007年KSR v. Teleflex判決簡介，萬國法律，153期，2007年6月。宋皇志，論進步性審理之進步空間－智慧財產法院九十七年度行專訴字第十九號行政判決評析，月旦法學雜誌，191期，2011年4月。李森堙，談美國專利非顯而易知性與TSM判準之爭議，科技法律透析，19卷10期，2007年10月。沈宗倫，以美國專利判例法為借鏡淺析我國專利進步性判斷的教示因果關係，專利師，6期，2011年7月。施雅儀，從In re Kubin案探討後KSR時代美國生物技術專利之顯而易知性審查，智慧財產權月刊，128期，2009年8月。范建得，基因專利的難題，科學人雜誌，49期，2006年3月。范建得、洪子洵，生物科技發展之法律問題，月旦法學雜誌，199期，2011年12月。孫寶成，談美國專利改革法案，科技法律透析，19卷9期，頁26，2007年9月。陳秉訓，美國專利訴訟制度：以專利有效性問題為中心，智慧財產權月刊，131期，2009年11月。陳豐年，專利權之歷史溯源與利弊初探，智慧財產權月刊，156期，頁64-66，2011年12月。楊瑪利、楊方儒，專利多常得獎台灣已是世界專利大國，遠見雜誌，237期，2006年3月，http://www.gvm.com.tw/Boardcontent_11883.html 董安丹，美國專利法上之非顯著性：法律上之判斷標準（下），智慧財產權月刊，12期，1999年12月。董安丹，美國專利法上之非顯著性：法律上之判斷標準（上），智慧財產權月刊，10期，頁77，1999年10月。董安丹，美國專利法上之非顯著性：法律上之判斷標準（中），智慧財產權月刊，11期，頁20，1999年11月。熊誦梅，眾裡尋他千百度：談所屬技術領域中之通常知識者－從最高行政法院98年度判字第1277號判決談起，月旦法學雜誌，191期，2011年4月。鄭中人，評最高行政法院九十四年度判字第九十三號判決及九十四年度判字第四五六號判決－兼論專利效力與專利侵害鑑定之異同，月旦法學，136期，2006年9月。鄭中人，淺論專利制度的經濟分析，律師雜誌，280期，2003年1月。謝祖松，美國專利法上「具有通常技術者」之探討，臺北大學法學論叢，76期，2010年12月。顏吉承，美國KSR案判決對我國進步性審查之啟示，智慧財產權月刊，105期，2007年9月。（四）法院判決智慧財產法院100年度民專訴字第40號判決智慧財產法院100年度行專訴字第102號判決智慧財產法院101年度行專訴字第20號判決智慧財產法院97年度行專訴字第19號判決智慧財產法院97年度行專訴字第36號判決智慧財產法院98年度民專上易字第7號判決智慧財產法院98年度民專訴字第151號判決智慧財產法院98年度行專訴字第104號判決智慧財產法院98年度行專訴字第97號判決智慧財產法院98年度行專訴字第99號判決智慧財產法院99年度行專訴字第55號判決智慧財產法院99年度行專訴字第76號判決智慧財產法院99年度行專訴字第8號判決最高行政法院84年度判字第1933號判例最高行政法院87年度判字第106號判決最高行政法院88年度判字第3652號判決最高行政法院98年度判字第1277號判決臺北高等行政法院89年度訴字第1008號判決臺北高等行政法院91年度訴字第4624號判決臺北高等行政法院91年度訴更一字第25號判決臺北高等行政法院93年度訴字第1969號判決（五）新聞公告 100年專利新申請案統計表，經濟部智慧財產局，專利佈告欄（2012年1月19日），available at http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/MultiMedia_FileDownload.ashx? guid=8501bec8-c256-474a-958d-72aa3c 4ed979 101年5月份專利處理案件，經濟部智慧財產局，專利業務統計，本年度月統計，available at http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/MultiMedia_FileDownload.ashx?guid= 1e3fbf94-d8df-4e67-8644-57c5bd7ff16c.pdf 立法院公報，92卷5期，3279號一冊，http://lis.ly.gov.tw/ttscgi/lgimg?@920501;0183;0442 專利審查基準第二篇第三章修正草案（劃線版），經濟部智慧財產局，available at http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/MultiMedia_FileDownload.ashx?guid=c3a667f5-5f54-453e-a6ae-eee54e293054 經濟部智慧財產局，立法院三讀通過「專利法」修正案，2011年11月30日，http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID=5571 經濟部智慧財產局，我國人向五大專利局專利申請統計，2010年2月8日。謝艾莉、黃晶琳，鴻海美國專利案全球第九，經濟日報，A4版，2012年1月13日。（六）其他 Leahy-Smith美國發明法案為美國專利體系帶來重大變革，三達智慧財產權事務所News Letter，6期，2011年10月，available at http://www.sundial.twmail.net/service4file/ 201110vol601.pdf 王美花、黃文發、董延茜，出席「21世紀亞太專利合作論壇（Asia-Pacific Patent Cooperation in the 21st Century）」報告，經濟部智慧財產局出國報告，2011年5月17日。李文賢，專利判決解析－專利要件（下），廣流智權事務所網站，2011年12月1日，http://www.wipo.com.tw/wio/?p=2272 汪漢卿，專利進步性判斷之後見之明，TIPA智慧財產培訓學院網站，http://www.tipa.org.tw/p3_1-1.asp?nno=146 周柏岳，美國專利KSR審查指南2010年更新重點，廣流智權事務所網站，2011年1月31日，http://www.wipo.com.tw/wio/?p=867 邱重盛，海事訴訟的孫子兵法，海安論壇，台灣海事安全與保安研究會，available at http://www.safetysea.org/modules/wfdownloads/visit.php?cid=4&lid=2235 專利審查基準研訂之始末－代序言，現行專利審查基準介紹，經濟部智慧財產局網站，http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=3536&guid= 57255b75-8525-4a23-98f6-053fd77462f3&lang=zh-tw 曾啟謀，專利訴訟心證公開與先前技術阻卻等抗辯之實例，TIPA智慧財產培訓學院網站，http://www.tipa.org.tw/p3_1-1.asp?nno=146 黃蘭閔，USPTO公告新版顯而易見性審查指南（上），北美智權報，39期，2010年10月18日，http://tw.naipo.com/portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Laws/US-15.htm 蔡昕皓，昨是今非的顯而易見性－談In re Kubin，北美智權報，28期，2009年9月30日，http://tw.naipo.com/portals/1/web_tw/knowledge_center/Biotechnology/ publish-6.htm 謝銘洋、劉孔中、李素華，智慧財產法院判決統計與分析，智慧財產案件審理總體檢研討會，台灣法學會等主辦，2009年12月26日。顏吉承，台灣專利侵權訴訟案例剖析（四），北美智權報，35期，2010年6月3日，http://tw.naipo.com/portals/1/web_tw/knowledge_center/infringement_case/ publish-23.htm 二、英文文獻（一）專書 ADELMAN, MARTIN J., RADER, RANDALL R., THOMAS, JOHN R. & WEGNER, HAROLD C., CASES AND MATERIALS ON PATENT LAW (2nd ed. 2003). CANELIAS, PETER S., PATENT PRACTICE HANDBOOK (2002). CHISUM, DONALD S., CHISUM ON PATENTS (2003). CHISUM, DONALD S., NARD, CRAIG ALLEN, SCHWARTZ, HERBERT F., NEWMAN, PAULINE & KIEFF, F. SCOTT, PRINCIPLES OF PATENT LAW (3rd ed. 2004). Duffy, John F. & Merges, Robert P., The Story of Graham v. John Deere Company: Patent Law’s Evolving Standard of Creativity, in INTELLECTUAL PROOERTY STORIES 115 (Jane C. Ginsburg & Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss ed., 2006). Kasson, John F., Republican Values as a Dynamic Factor, in THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION IN AMERICA 3 (Gary J. Kornblith ed., 1998). MERGES, ROBERT PATRICK & DUFFY, JOHN FITZGERALD, PATENT LAW AND POLICY: CASES AND MATERIALS (2nd ed. 1997). MILLER, ARTHUR R. & DAVIS, MICHAEL H., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHT IN A NUTSHELL 4 (2nd ed., West Pub. Co.1990). MUELLER, JANICE M., AN INTRODUCTION TO PATENT LAW (2003). ROSENBERG, PETER D., PATENT LAW FUNDAMENTALS, vol.2 (2nd ed., Clark Boardman 1992). STIGLITZ, JOSEPH E., MAKING GLOBALIZATION WORK (2006). （二）期刊 Allison, John R. & Lemley, Mark A., The Growing Complexity of the United States Patent System, 82 B.U. L. REV. 77 (2002). Angelocci, Nicholas, KSR v. Teleflex: Obvious Ambiguity, 18 DEPAUL J. ART TECH. & INTELL. PROP. L. 293 (2008). Boudreaux, Donald J. & Pritchard, A. C., Rewriting the Constitution: An Economic Analysis of the Constitutional Amendment Process, 62 FORDHAM L. REV. 111 (1993). Conley, Scott R., Irrational Behavior, Hindsight, and Patentability: Balancing the “Obvious to Try” Test with Unexpected Results, 51 IDEA 271 (2011). Duc, Timothy J. Le, Requesting Stays Pending Patent Reexamination after KSR: Unworkable Standard at Play or no Standard at All?, 15 INTELL. PROP. L. BULL. 1 (2010). Dzeguze, Andrew B., The Devil in the Details: A Critique of KSR`s Unwarranted Reinterpretation of “Person Having Ordinary Skill”, 10 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 1 (2009). Furrow, Michael Enzo, Analyzing the Laws, Regulations, and Policies Affecting FDA-Requlated Products: Pharmaceutical Patent Life-Cycle Management after KSR v. Teleflex, 63 FOOD DRUG L.J. 275 (2008). Harris, Robert W., Prospects for Supreme Court Review of the Federal Circuit Standards for Obviousness of Inventions Combining Old Elements, 68 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 66 (1986). Hays, Rebecca, Biotechnology Obviousness in the Post-Genomic Era: KSR v. Teleflex and In Re Kubin, 10 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 801 (2009). Irving, Tom, Stevens, Lauren L. & Lee, Scott M. K., Nonobviousness in the U.S. Post-KSR for Innovative Drug Companies, 34 DAYTON L. REV. 157 (2009). Kitch, Edmund W., Graham v. John Deere Co.: New Standards for Patents, 1966 SUP. CT. REV. 293 (1966). Klein, Todd, eBay v. MercExchange and KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.: The Supreme Court Wages War Against Patent Trolls, 112 PENN ST. L. REV. 295 (2007). Lake, Kevin J., Synergism and Nonobviousness: the Rhetorical Rubik’s Cube of Patentability, 24 B.C.L. REV. 723 (1983). Lee, Justin, How KSR Broadens (Without Lowering) the Evidentiary Standard of Nonobviousness, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 15 (2008). Lee, S. J. & J. Butler, M., Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation: KSR v. Teleflex and the Chemical Arts, 17 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L. J. 915 (2007). Lee, Steven J. & Butler, Jeffrey M., Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation: KSR v. Teleflex and the Chemical Arts, 17 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 915 (2007). Lesciotto, Kate M., KSR: Have Gene Patents Been Ko’d? The Non-obviousness Determination of Patents Claiming Nucleotide Sequences When the Prior Art Has Already Disclosed the Amino Acid Sequence, 86 WASH. U. L. REV. 209 (2008). Mandel, Gregory N., Another Missed Opportunity: The Supreme Court’s Failure to Define Nonobviousness or Combat Hindsight Bias in KSR v. Teleflex, 12 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 323 (2008). Note, Patentability of Mechanical Combinations: A Definition of Synergism, 57 TEX.L.REV. 1043 (1979). Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, In Search of Institutional Identity: The Federal Circuit Comes of Age, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 787 (2008). Sarnoff, Joshua D., Bilcare, KSR, Presumptions of Validity, Preliminary Relief, and Obviousness in Patent Law, 25 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT LJ 995 (2008). Skelley, James, Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation under Review: Developments in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 13 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 107 (2007). Smith, Steven P. & Thomme, Kurt R. Van, Bridge over Troubled Water: the Supreme Court’s New Patent Obviousness Standard in KSR Should Be Readily Apparent and Benefit the Public, 17 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 127 (2007). Tresansky, John O., The Role of the “Subject Matter as a Whole” in Obviousness Determinations, 66 JPTOS 348 (1984). Walker, Edward Philip, Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness: the Elusive Nexus Requiremen (Part II), 69 JPTOS 229 (1987). （三）法院判決 Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U.S. 192 (1883). Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Lupin, Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Bayer Schering Pharma A.G. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 575 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc., 292 F.3d 718 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Calmar Inc. & Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chem. Co., 220 F.Supp. 414, aff’d, 336 F.2d 110, rev’d and remanded, 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Carbice Corp. of American v. American Patents Development Co., 283 U.S. 420 (1931). Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84 (1941). Daiichi Sankyo v. Apotex, 501 F.3d 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923). Electric Cable Joint Co. v. Brooklyn Edison Co., 292 U.S. 69 (1934). Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1393 (PTO Bd. Pat. Appl & Int. 1988). Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co., 321 U.S. 275 (1944). Graham v. John Deere Co., 216 F.Supp. 272, rev’d, 333 F.2d 529, aff’d, 383 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1966). Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950). Hailes v. Van Wormer, 87 U.S. 353 (1873). Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 (1850). Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168 (C.C.P.A. 1971). In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In re Helin, 309 F.2d 505 (C.C.P.A. 1962). In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In re Huellmantel, 324 F.2d 998 (C.C.P.A. 1963). In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In re Kepler, 132 F.2d 130 (C.C.P.A. 1942). In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In re Shaffer, 229 F.2d 476 (C.C.P.A. 1956). In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In re Translogic, 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In re Urbanic, 319 F.2d 267 (C.C.P.A. 1963). In re Vanco Mach. & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In re Winslow, 265 F.2d 1017 (C.C.P.A. 1966). International Cellucotton Prod. Co. v. Sterlek Co., 94 F.2d 10 (2d Cir. 1938). Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Jurgens v. McKasy, 927 F.2d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Kahn v. General Motors Corp., 135 F.3d 1472, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 875 (1998). Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson Co., 745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984). KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Mayo v. Prometheus, No. 10-1150, slip op. at 8-9 (U.S. March 20, 2012), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf McNeil-PPC, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 516 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Metronic, Inc. v. Intermedics, Inc., 799 F.2d 734 (Fed. Cir. 1986). National Hot Pouncing Mach. Co. v. Hedden, 148 U.S. 482 (1892). Oddzon Products., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Labs, Inc., 520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U.S. 347 (1875). Riverwood International Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., Inc., 324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Technologies Corp., 603 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Seymour v. Osborne, 78 U.S. 516 (1870). Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company, 93 U.S. 486 (1876). Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Teleflex Inc. v. KSR Int`l Co. 298 F. Supp. 2d 581 (E.D. Mich. 2003). Teleflex, Inc. v. KSR Int`l Co., 119 Fed. Appx. 282 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Truswal Systems Corp. v. Hydro Air Engineering, Inc., 813 F.2d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1987). United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U.S. 275 (1892). Webster Loom Company v. Higgins, 105 U.S. 580 (1881). （四）其他 Lincoln, Abraham, Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions, available at Abraham Lincoln Online, http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/discoveries.htm Number of Patents Granted as Distributed by Year of Patent Grant, Breakout by U.S. State and Foreign Country of Origin, USPTO Statistics, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/ cst_utl.htm S. Rep. No. 1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1952), reprinted in 1952 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2394. Sandvos, Jay, How KSR v. Teleflex Should Change Your Patent Strategies, EDN news archive (May 16, 2007), http://edn.com/electronics-news/4314426/Expert- analysis-How-KSR-v-Teleflex-should- change-your-patent-strategies Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, & Fox P.L.L.C., KSR v. Teleflex (KSR), The Reexamination Center (September 7, 2009), http://reexamcenter.com/2009/09/ksr-v-teleflex-ksr/ USPTO Notice, 72 Fed. Reg. 57526 (October 10, 2007), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/72fr57526.pdf USPTO Notice, 75 Fed. Reg. 53643 (September 1, 2010), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-09-01/pdf/2010-21646.pdf
Description:	碩士國立政治大學智慧財產研究所 98361016 100
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098361016
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Intellectual Property] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
101601.pdf	2554Kb	Adobe PDF2	2369	View/Open

All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

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 © - Feedback