方法专利中的步骤顺序对保护范围的限定作用——OBE–工厂·翁玛赫特与鲍姆盖特纳有限公司与浙江康华眼镜有限公司侵犯专利权纠纷案
|
摘要
对于存在步骤顺序的方法发明,在权利要求没有明确记载各步骤的实施顺序时,专利权的保护范围是否限于权利要求中步骤的撰写顺序,有不同的意见。最高人民法院在本案中提出,应根据本领域技术人员对说明书的理解,确定各步骤是否应当按照特定的顺序实施。
As to the method patent claim with steps, when the claim doesn't recite the order of steps,whether it requires that the steps be performed in the written order, there are different opinions. In this case,Supreme People's Court proposed whether the steps should be performed in a particular order, based on understanding of the specification by those skilled in the art.
As to the method patent claim with steps, when the claim doesn't recite the order of steps,whether it requires that the steps be performed in the written order, there are different opinions. In this case,Supreme People's Court proposed whether the steps should be performed in a particular order, based on understanding of the specification by those skilled in the art.
引文
1最高人民法院民事裁定书(2008)民申字第980号;《中华人民共和国最高人民法院公报》2010年第1期。
2最高人民法院民事判决(2013)民提字第225号。
3 Gift Express,Inc.v.Compuserve Inc.,256 F.3d 1323,1342(Fed.Cir.2001).
4 TAL tech Ltd.v.Esquel Apparel,Inc.,279 F.App'x 974,978(Fed.Cir.2008);see also Function Media,LLC v.Google,Inc.,708 F.3d 1310,1320(Fed.Cir.2013).
5 Interactive Gift Express,Inc.v.CompuServe Inc.,256 F.3d 1323,59 USPQ2d 1401(Fed.Cir.2000).
2最高人民法院民事判决(2013)民提字第225号。
3 Gift Express,Inc.v.Compuserve Inc.,256 F.3d 1323,1342(Fed.Cir.2001).
4 TAL tech Ltd.v.Esquel Apparel,Inc.,279 F.App'x 974,978(Fed.Cir.2008);see also Function Media,LLC v.Google,Inc.,708 F.3d 1310,1320(Fed.Cir.2013).
5 Interactive Gift Express,Inc.v.CompuServe Inc.,256 F.3d 1323,59 USPQ2d 1401(Fed.Cir.2000).