臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：由專利法教示因果關係論專利進步性：以組合專利與類似組合專利為中心
書刊名：國立臺灣大學法學論叢
作者：沈宗倫 引用關係
作者(外文)：Shen, Chung-lun
出版日期：2013
卷期：42:2
頁次：頁317-379
主題關鍵詞：進步性；非顯而易見性；教示因果關係；先前技術；申請專利範圍；所屬領域具有通常知識者；發明；法定排他權；專利審查；無效抗辯；An inventive step；Nonobviousness；Teaching causation；Prior art；Claims；The person having ordinary skills in the art；Invention；Exclusive rights；Patent prosecution；Invalidity defense
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(4) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:3
  • 共同引用共同引用:117
  • 點閱點閱:58
「功利主義」乃以確保發明者「誘因」為訴求，經由「誘因」的確保，使發明者與就現有發明內容進行改良或再創新之潛在發明者，未來樂於投入技術研發，貢獻產業進展。在功利主義的思維下，政府（代表民眾）與發明人間存在一個類似社會契約的概念，一方面透過立法，授予發明人法定排他權（exclusive rights），為其研發成果，創造市場上的經濟優勢，令發明人有機會利用排他權的權限，適度地回收研發成本，並取得合理的利潤。另一方面，以前述的法定排他權為對價，發明人有義務揭露高品質的研發成果給公眾，令公眾有機會接觸研發成果相關的資訊，更期待藉由授權或法定權利的限制，得以使公眾能致力於技術的改良與累積創新，促成專利法制的產業目標。專利的「進步性」要件，恰為高品質發明衡量的樞紐。專利進步性無可置疑的，常為各國專利法爭議的重心。向來，我國學說側重於進步性評價主體（所屬領域具有通常知識者）的研究，較少直接論及先前技術與發明間的教示因果關係。鑑於西元2007年美國專利判例法的發展（KSR 案），本文擬由教示因果關係為中心，建構我國專利進步性評價的解釋方針，不僅期待能與既有關於進步性評價主體的研究文獻，作一橫向的研究整合，更希望能貢獻研究成果，作為司法實務於相關爭議問題的判決參考。
Under utilitarianism, it seems that a societal contract exists between the government, on behalf of the public, and the inventor. On the one side, the government granted the exclusive rights to enable the inventor to recover the R & D expenditures and obtain the profits to the reasonable extent for the sake of securing the inventor's incentives in further innovations. On the other side, subject to the price of exclusive rights, the inventor is obliged to disclose the high-quality invention to the public, and provide with opportunities for the public to access the aforesaid invention by licensing or other similar approaches. The requirement of ”an inventive step” or ”nonobviousness” for a patent under patent law serves a significant pivot to evaluate a high-quality invention. Recently, Taiwanese scholarship has been concentrated upon the studies on the issue of ”the person having ordinary skills in the art” that functions a hypothetical expert for evaluation of ”an inventive step” or ”nonobviousness”, in order to respond to the development of judicial practices. To converge with the aforesaid studies, and in view of KSR case under U.S. patent case law, this article attempts to explore the teaching causation of prior arts over the inventions in the evaluation of ”an inventive step” or ”nonobviousness”. The clarification for the teaching causation will be expected to contribute to the decision on the issue of ”an inventive step” or ”nonobviousness” under Taiwanese judicial cases in the future.
期刊論文
1.Sherkow, J. S.(2011)。Negativing invention。Brigham Young University Law Review，2011，1091-1138。  new window
2.Seymore, Sean B.(2012)。The null patent。William & Mary Law Review，53，2041-2105。  new window
3.Mueller, J. M.(2008)。Chemicals, combinations, and “common sense”: How the Supreme Court’s KSR decision is changing Federal Circuit obviousness determinations in pharmaceutical and biotechnology Cases。Northern Kentucky Law Review，35，281-314。  new window
4.Minssen, Timo(2008)。The U.S. examination of nonobviousness after KSR v. Teleflex with special emphasis on DNA-related inventions。International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law，39(8)，886-916。  new window
5.Meurer, M. J.,、Strandburg, K. J.(2008)。Patent carrots and sticks: A model of nonobviousness。Lewis & Clark Law Review，12，547-578。  new window
6.Mandel, G. N.(2008)。Another missed opportunity: The Supreme Court’s failure to define nonobviousness or combat hindsight bias in KSR v。Teleflex. Lewis & Clark Law Review，12，323-342。  new window
7.Lee, Peter(2010)。Patent law and the two cultures。Yale Law Journal，120，2-82。  new window
8.Landers, Amy L.(2010)。Ordinary creativity in patent law: The artist within the scientist。Missouri Law Review，75，1-77。  new window
9.Fromer, Jeanne C.(2009)。Patent disclosure。Iowa Law Review，94，539-606。  new window
10.Eisenberg, R. S.(2008)。Pharma’s nonobvious problem。Lewis & Clark Law Review，12，375-430。  new window
11.Durie, Daralyn J.、Lemley, Mark A.(2008)。A realistic approach to the obviousness of inventions。William & Mary Law Review，50，989-1020。  new window
12.Duffy, J. F.(2007)。Inventing invention: A case study of legal innovation。Texas Law Review，86，1-72。  new window
13.Davidson, J.,、Greenberg, N.(2008)。Psychologists’ views on nonobviousness: Are they obvious。Lewis & Clark Law Review，12，527-546。  new window
14.Cole, P.(2008)。KSR and standards of inventive step: A European view。John Marshall Law School Review of Intellectual Property Law，8，14-46。  new window
15.Burk, Dan L.、Lemley, Mark A.(2009)。Fence posts or sign posts? Rethinking patent claim construction。University of Pennsylvania Law Review，157，1743-1799。  new window
16.Blair-Stanek, A(2009)。Increased market power as a new secondary consideration in patent law。American University Law Review，58，707-746。  new window
17.Abramowicz, M.、Duffy, J. F.(2011)。The inducement standard of patentability。Yale Law Journal，120，1590-1680。  new window
18.鄭煜騰、王偉霖(20111200)。美國專利法上的非顯而易知性研究。智慧財產評論，9(2)，43-98。new window  延伸查詢new window
19.劉懿嫻(20101200)。美國專利法非顯而易知性之新觀點：相同條件下的客觀指標。科技法學評論，7(2)，181-219。new window  延伸查詢new window
20.沈宗倫(20110700)。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--以智慧財產法院97年度行專訴字第36號行政判決與最高行政法院98年度判字第1277號判決為例。專利師，6，52-65。new window  延伸查詢new window
21.謝祖松(20101200)。美國專利法上「具有通常技術者」之探討。臺北大學法學論叢，76，43-94。new window  延伸查詢new window
22.宋皇志(20110400)。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，191，145-159。new window  延伸查詢new window
23.Burk, Dan L.、Lemley, Mark A.(2003)。Policy Levers in Patent Law。Virginia Law Review，89(7)，1575-1696。  new window
24.李素華(20110400)。進步性判斷之「所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者」--德國立法例之觀點。專利師，5，38-51。new window  延伸查詢new window
25.張啟聰(20080400)。KSR案及其對美國專利實務造成之影響。科技法學評論，5(1)，225-256。new window  延伸查詢new window
26.胡心蘭(20081100)。非顯而易知之非顯而易知性--美國最高法院KSR案判決評析。興大法學，4，193-238。new window  延伸查詢new window
27.Duffy, John F.(2008)。A Timing Approach to Patentability。LEWIS & CLARK L. REV.，12，343-374。  new window
28.Eisenberg, Rebecca S.(2004)。Obvious to Whom? Evaluating Inventions from the Perspective of PHO-SITA。BERKELEY TECH. L. J.，19，885-906。  new window
29.Mandel, Gregory(2008)。The Non-obvious Problem: How the Indeterminate Nonobviousness Standard Produces Excessive Patent Grants。U.C. DAVIS L. REV.，42，57-128。  new window
30.Fromer, Jeanne C.(2008)。The Layers of Obviousness in Patent Law。HARV. J. LAW & TEC，22，75-101。  new window
31.Miller, Joseph Scott(2008)。Remixing Obviousness。TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J.，16，237-256。  new window
圖書
1.Toshiko Takenaka(2008)。Extent of Patent Protection in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan: Examination through the Concept of ‘Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art of the Invention’。PATENT LAW AND THEORY: A HANDBOOK OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH。Cheltenham/Northampton：Edward Elgar.。  new window
2.謝銘洋(2012)。智慧財產權法。台北：元照。  延伸查詢new window
3.Kieff, F. Scott et al.(2011)。Principles of patent law Cases and materials。New York：Foundation Press。  new window
4.Harmon, R. L.(2009)。Patents and Federal Circuit。Washinton, D.C：BNA Books。  new window
5.Hacon, R.、Pagenberg, J.(2008)。Concise European patent law。Alphen aan den Rijn：Kluwer Law。  new window
6.Goldstein, P.(2008)。International intellectual property law - Cases and materials。New York：Foundation Press。  new window
7.Chisum, D. S.(2012)。Chisum on patents (database ed.).。New York：LexisNexis Matthew Bender。  new window
8.Adelman, M. J. et al.(2011)。Global issues in patent law。St. Paul：West Group。  new window
9.黃文儀(2004)。專利實務（一）。台北：黃文儀。  延伸查詢new window
10.陳文吟(2010)。我國專利法制度之研究。台北：五南。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.蔡明誠(2000)。發明專利法研究。臺北：蔡明誠。new window  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：611（臺灣：583，外國：28） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2298792 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68096849
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上