發(fā)布時間：2018-06-09 21:20

  本文選題：權(quán)利要求 + 撰寫錯誤　； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：在我國的專利保護(hù)領(lǐng)域，專利權(quán)保護(hù)范圍的確定直接取決于權(quán)利要求書，所以權(quán)利要求的撰寫質(zhì)量將會對專利權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍產(chǎn)生很大的影響。由于專利申請本身技術(shù)和法律層面知識的復(fù)雜性，以及語言表達(dá)的局限性和人類認(rèn)知的有限性等限制，權(quán)利要求的撰寫往往難以盡善盡美，專利保護(hù)范圍也難以得到最終的確定。 本文通過對最高人民法院頒布的2012年知識產(chǎn)權(quán)十大創(chuàng)新案件中“秦邦公司專利糾紛案”的分析和討論，試圖明確案件所涉及的基礎(chǔ)概念和法律關(guān)系，探究法院在處理案件時所遵循的法理依據(jù)，進(jìn)而為以后類似案件的處理提供一些指導(dǎo)。 本文共分為三個部分。第一部分是案情簡介及爭議焦點。本文案例選自2012年知識產(chǎn)權(quán)十大創(chuàng)新案。本文簡要地回顧案件的始末，以各級法院不同法理考量為基礎(chǔ)，發(fā)現(xiàn)本案及相似案例可能涉及到的爭議焦點為：如果權(quán)利要求撰寫存在錯誤，那么這種撰寫錯誤是否會對專利保護(hù)范圍產(chǎn)生影響及產(chǎn)生何種影響? 第二部分是權(quán)利要求撰寫的不同錯誤類型。本文將權(quán)利要求撰寫的錯誤類型分為三類：1.權(quán)利要求撰寫文字錯誤；2.權(quán)利要求遺漏說明書中公開的部分技術(shù)方案；3.無法界定專利保護(hù)范圍。對于其中的權(quán)利要求撰寫文字錯誤，又進(jìn)行再次劃分：明顯的文字錯誤，歧義性文字錯誤，術(shù)語使用錯誤。本文將錯誤類型進(jìn)行區(qū)分的同時，引用到了大量的案例，使文中提到的錯誤類型更加明確。 第三部分是權(quán)利要求撰寫錯誤對專利保護(hù)范圍的影響。本文針對權(quán)利要求撰寫的不同錯誤類型，，對應(yīng)分析其對專利保護(hù)范圍產(chǎn)生的影響，從理論上找到判斷的依據(jù)。 結(jié)語部分結(jié)合不同的權(quán)利要求撰寫錯誤類型，分析我國對專利保護(hù)的雙重管理體制，同時為提高專利申請文件的撰寫質(zhì)量建言。 本文案例所體現(xiàn)的實質(zhì)還是權(quán)利要求撰寫質(zhì)量的問題。正因為一審、二審法院認(rèn)定權(quán)利要求用語存在錯誤，進(jìn)而認(rèn)為專利保護(hù)范圍不明確，才使得權(quán)利要求撰寫錯誤對專利保護(hù)范圍的影響凸顯出來。只有采取措施切實提高權(quán)利要求的撰寫質(zhì)量，才會使專利保護(hù)范圍盡量得以明確。
[Abstract]:In the field of patent protection in China, the determination of the scope of patent protection directly depends on the claim, so the quality of the writing of the claim will have a great influence on the scope of the patent protection. Because of the complexity of the technical and legal knowledge of the patent application itself, the limitations of the language expression and the limited human cognition. The limitation of rights is not always perfect, and the scope of patent protection is difficult to be determined.
Through the analysis and discussion of the "Qin state patent dispute case" in the ten major innovative cases of intellectual property rights issued by the Supreme People's court in 2012, this paper tries to clarify the basic concepts and legal relations involved in the case, and explore the legal basis of the court in dealing with the case, and then provide some references for the treatment of similar cases in the future. Guide.
This article is divided into three parts. The first part is the brief introduction of the case and the focus of the dispute. This case is selected from the ten major innovation cases of intellectual property in 2012. This article briefly reviews the beginning and end of the case, based on the different jurisprudence of the courts at all levels, and finds that the case and similar cases may involve the focus of the controversy: if the claim is written. Mistake, will this writing error affect the scope of patent protection and what effect will it have?
The second part is the different types of errors written by the claims. This article divides the wrong types written by the claims into three categories: 1. right requires writing errors; 2. rights require missing part of the technical scheme disclosed in the instructions; 3. can not define the scope of the patent protection. Second division: obvious text errors, ambiguous text errors, and terminology use errors. This article distinguishes the types of errors and quotes a large number of cases, making the types of errors mentioned more clearly.
The third part is the influence of the right requirement writing error on the scope of patent protection. This paper, in view of the different types of error written by the claim, analyses its influence on the scope of patent protection, and finds the basis of the judgment in theory.
The conclusion part combines different types of rights to write wrong types, analyzes the dual management system of patent protection in China, and improves the quality of patent application documents.
The essence of this case is the question of the quality of the writing of rights. It is precisely because of first instance that the court of second instance claims that there is a mistake in the claim, and then that the scope of the patent protection is not clear, the influence of the writing error on the scope of the patent protection is highlighted. Only measures are taken to improve the compose of the rights. The quality of patent will make the scope of patent protection as clear as possible.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.42

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉永沛;;專利侵權(quán)判定元對比理論[J];北大法律評論;2011年02期

2 穆建軍;權(quán)利要求書撰寫應(yīng)在專利侵權(quán)中發(fā)揮防線作用[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2005年09期

3 張廣良;;論專利權(quán)保護(hù)范圍的確定原則[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2009年10期

4 陳玉陽;門高利;;如何清楚、合理地確定權(quán)利要求的保護(hù)范圍[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2011年02期

5 裴素英;;從實審角度看撰寫缺陷帶來的客體問題[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2011年12期

6 羅霞;;論《專利法》第26條第4款在權(quán)利要求存在撰寫錯誤時的正確適用[J];法律適用;2012年09期

7 彭昌吻;;淺談如何撰寫權(quán)利要求書[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2012年10期

8 羅霞;;專利授權(quán)確權(quán)中如何看待存在的明顯錯誤[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2012年06期

9 儀軍;侯占恒;王fk;周云川;姜庶偉;周麗婷;;如何確定專利權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍——從說明書對權(quán)利要求書的解釋分析[J];科技與法律;2008年03期

10 徐棣楓;;你可能并不擁有自以為擁有的權(quán)利——案例視角的專利權(quán)利要求撰寫[J];南京大學(xué)法律評論;2006年01期

本文編號：2000867