English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88613/118155 (75%)
Visitors : 23460027      Online Users : 405
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/109599


    Title: Judicial Power to Correct Disputed Patent Claims under the American Patent Case Law: A Comment on Taiwan Intellectual Property Court Civil Judgment (99) Min Zhuan Shang Zi No.5 (2010)
    Authors: 陳秉訓
    Chen, Ping-Hsun
    Contributors: 科智所
    Keywords: American patent law;Taiwan Intellectual Property Court;claim correction;indefiniteness
    Date: 2012-01
    Issue Date: 2017-05-15 15:48:36 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: A claim defines the scope of a patentee’s exclusive right. When a claim has an error, competitors of a patentee might not be subject to the constraint of the patent because such the error might cause the claim to be invalid for indefiniteness. However, that is not always the case. In the United States, courts have authority to correct minor errors in a claim, even though such the minor errors can cause the claim to be invalid. The test for claim correction has two prongs: (1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate in view of claim language and the specification, and (2) the prosecution history does not suggest a different interpretation. In addition, an error has to be apparent, evident, or obvious on the face of the patent. Moreover, when applying the first prong, the Federal Circuit requires the claim construction of a corrected claim is not subject to reasonable debate. Unlike the United States, the judicial power to correct a claim is not well-defined in Taiwan. This article comments on one decision issued by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court (“TIPC”), where the TIPC did not define the meaning of “error” that it has authority to correct. The TIPC was taking over the patent agency’s function that is well defined in the Taiwan Patent Act. Unlike the Federal Circuit, the TIPC did not provide any legal theory to support its authority to correct a claim. Thus, this paper urges the TIPC to clarify its position or to admit its wrongful decision in later cases.
    Relation: Soochow Law Journal, Vol.9, No.1, pp.75-116.
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML379View/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
    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。
    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。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback