English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 109950/140901 (78%)
Visitors : 46004683      Online Users : 859
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
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/81815
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81815

    Title: The Doctrine of Equivalents and Interchangeability in the United States, Taiwan and China
    Authors: 張添榜;王立達;劉尚志
    Chang, Tien-Pang;Wang, Li-dar;Liu, Shang-Jyh Liu
    Contributors: 法學院
    Keywords: Doctrine of Equivalents;Interchangeability;Tri-partite Test;Triple Identity Test;Insubstantial Differences Test
    Date: 2013-12
    Issue Date: 2016-03-04 17:34:55 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: The United States, Taiwan and China have similar systems for determining patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The courts in these countries apply the test of interchangeability in finding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. However, the courts in the United States, Taiwan and China evaluate interchangeability in different ways. In the United States, the interchangeability is one important factor for determining equivalent infringement in addition to the function, way and result factors in the triple identity test. Nevertheless, the court does not necessarily have to consider interchangeability and can’t rely only on the interchangeability factor to find equivalent infringement. In Taiwan, the triple identity test is a comprehensive test for determining equivalent infringement. Although interchangeability is not provided in the Guideline for Patent Infringement Analysis, some decisions by Taiwan’s Supreme Court treat the interchangeability as an independent and comprehensive test for finding equivalent infringement. In China, neither the SPC Provisions nor the SPC Interpretation provides interchangeability, but the Supreme People’s Court considered interchangeability in some of its decisions. The Court assessed the interchangeability by determining whether one skilled in the art could contemplate without creative work, followed the standard in the SPC Provisions and the SPC Interpretation, and treated the “creative work” as an necessary factor in addition to the function, way and result factors in the triple identity test for determining the equivalent infringement.
    Relation: GLOBAL LEGAL ISSUES 2013, 1, 217-239
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    217239.pdf920KbAdobe PDF2952View/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 Copyright Announcement
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback