内容简介

本书是北京外国语大学法学精品教材“普通法案例教学系列”的一本，是针对中国学生，经过北京外国语大学法学院十多年课堂教学经验的积累，吸取国外法学教育方法中的有益成分的基础上编写而成的。共分为十四章，包括：概论、新颖性、实用性、非显而易见性、可专利性主题、公开、权利要求、专利审查、授权后修改等专利前期确权工作的课题，以及侵权、救济、许可、国际申请、发展现状等后期维权工作的内容。

作者简介

郑小军，北京外国语大学法学院创始人之一，于2001年从美国回国，担任北外法学教育的创始工作，并从事英文法律教学工作至今，所授课程包括：英美法概论、英文法律写作、模拟法庭、知识产权概论、商标法、专利法、英美财产法和侵权法以及美国宪法学。

郑小军老师曾在中国国际贸易促进委员会仲裁委员会和商标代理部工作，代表中国首次出席国际工业产权大会和许可证执行人会议，完成多项重大和具有历史性案件，为中国商标法律的发展和完善做出过独到的贡献。郑小军老师自1989年至2001年在美国纽约和新罕布什尔州工作学习达12年，主要从事商标代理和咨询工作，并于1995年在富兰克林法学院获得知识产权硕士学位。

自2001年从事教学工作以来，郑小军老师为推进法律英语教学不遗余力，经常参加各种相关学术活动、发表有关论文，并给全国各高校法律英语教师提供培训课程，广受好评。

目录

　　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

精彩书摘

　　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 专利法 电子书 下载 mobi epub pdf txt