[法律資料]DOE案例學習分享之一-Graver案

《[法律資料]DOE案例學習分享之一-Graver案》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《[法律資料]DOE案例學習分享之一-Graver案（35頁珍藏版）》請在裝配圖網(wǎng)上搜索。

1、DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題 研 究 2011 1 Graver Tank uPatent 2043960;uFound material that, when added to the process, reduces the amount of mineral -like material that would smother the electric arc present;uPart of the electrode;uThis material included alkaline earth metal silicate and calcium flu

2、oride（ 硅 酸 脂 ） ;Linde Air Products Improvements DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題 研 究 2011 17 uThe material controls heat rate as well as rate of penetration in addition to improving the quality of metal as well as purifying and protecting the molten metal;uThis new process allowed materials up to 2.5

3、inches thick to be plated in one pass;uObviously improves efficiency;Further Results DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題 研 究 2011 18 The Infringementu Graver Tank tried to patent a process initially called the “Hidden Arc”uNote: both the Linde Group and Graver Companys processes seemed to not have an arc

4、;uHowever, what happens is that voltage is AC; thus, current varies from positive to negative so at times, arc seems to “vanish”;uThis is actually why there is more control: too much current will result in a runaway arc, as an arc draws current to replace the resistance;u Gravers method used mangane

5、se(錳 ) instead of Linde Air Products magnesium(鎂 ) DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題 研 究 2011 19 The CaseuLinde Air Products took Graver Tank Manufacturing Company to court;uThe United States district court found infringement and the Court of Appeals upheld the infringement claim;uWas escalated to the

6、Supreme Court in 1950;uChief Justice was Fred M. Vinson;uSupreme Court was looking specifically for whether or not the omission of a material not mentioned in the patent could save the defendant from infringement; DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題 研 究 2011 20 District Court RulinguThe Lincoln Electric

7、Co. made, and the other petitioners used and sold, a flux substantially identical with that set forth in the valid composition claims of the patent in suit, and which could be made by a person skilled in the art merely by following its teachings. uThe petitioners introduced no evidence to show that

8、their accused flux was derived either from the prior art, by independent experiment, or from any source other than the teachings of the patent in suit. uThe court found infringement of each of the four claims, and concluded that the respondent was entitled to a permanent injunction against future in

9、fringement and to an accounting for profits and damages” DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題 研 究 2011 21 Appeals CourtuThe case was sent to an appeals court which agreed with the decision made by the district court.uThe case was then sent to the 7th district court which actually strengthened the infringe

10、ment case claiming even more of the claims were infringed than originally ruled by the court.uFinally, the case was sent to the Supreme Court and upheld claiming that though the “infringement was not literal” there was still infringement based on the “Doctrine of Equivalents.” DOE(Doctrine of Equiva

11、lent)專 題 研 究 2011 22 Supreme CourtuIt performs substantially the same function；uIn substantially the same way；uTo yield substantially the same result；uThen it is EQUIVALENT 。 DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題 研 究 2011 23 Supreme Court論 述 等 同 原 則 的 重 要 性 ： 必 須 意 識 到 如 果 允 許 他 人 稍 加 變 動 后 就 可 以 利 用 專 利 發(fā)

12、 明 ， 那么 專 利 保 護 就 會 變 得 空 洞 無 用 了 ， 因 為 完 全 一 模 一 樣 的 照 抄 是 十 分少 見 的 。 如 果 專 利 權 人 在 任 何 情 況 下 都 要 受 其 權 利 要 求 文 字 內(nèi) 容 的 嚴 格限 制 ， 那 么 專 利 權 的 利 益 就 得 不 到 切 實 維 護 ， 專 利 制 度 鼓 勵 公 開 發(fā)明 的 目 的 就 會 落 空 。 等 同 原 則 正 是 順 應 這 種 需 要 而 提 出 來 的 ， 其 核 心 在 于 防 止 他 人盜 用 專 利 發(fā) 明 成 果 。 DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題

13、 研 究 2011 24 Supreme Court論 述 等 同 認 定 的 標 準 ： 等 同 的 構 成 ， 必 須 在 專 利 、 現(xiàn) 有 技 術 和 有 關 案 件 特 定 情 形 的 背景 中 予 以 確 定 。 在 專 利 法 看 來 ， 等 同 不 是 某 一 公 式 的 禁 錮 ， 也 不 是在 真 空 中 予 以 考 慮 的 絕 對 。 它 不 要 求 每 一 個 目 的 和 每 一 個 方 面 的 完全 一 致 。 在 確 定 等 同 時 ， 與 某 一 事 物 相 等 的 事 物 可 能 并 不 相 互 等 同 ，而 那 些 主 要 效 果 不 同 的 事 物 可 能

14、會 有 時 等 同 。 必 須 考 慮 專 利 中 某 一成 分 所 要 達 到 的 效 果 ， 它 與 其 它 成 分 合 并 時 所 產(chǎn) 生 的 特 性 ， 以 及 它在 操 作 時 將 要 產(chǎn) 生 的 功 能 。 DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題 研 究 2011 25 3 后 續(xù) 事 項 DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題 研 究 2011 26 問 題 :u權 利 要 求 解 釋 or DOE ？ u學 習 英 語 資 源 or 漢 語 資 源 ？ u 專 利 權 的 保 護 范 圍 -閆 文 軍 ； 美 國 知 識 產(chǎn) 權 法

15、-李 明 德 ； DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題 研 究 2011 27 4 Bright 對 Graver案 整 理 DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題 研 究 2011 28 U.S. District CourtThe US Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitU.S. Supreme CourtLinde air products co. graver tank Ellis, Patent Claims (1 9 4 9 ) 5 9 -6 0 . DOE(Doctrine of Equi

16、valent)專 題 研 究 2011 32 What constitutes equivalency must be determined against the context of the patent, the prior art, and the particular circumstances of the case. Consideration must be given to the purpose for which an ingredient is used in a patent, the qualities it has when combined with the o

17、ther ingredients, and the function which it is intended to perform. An important factor is whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was.A finding of equivalence is a determination of fact. Proo

18、f can be made in any form: through testimony of experts or others versed in the technology; by documents, including texts and treatises; and, of course, by the disclosures of the prior art. Like any other issue of fact, final determination requires a balancing of credibility, persuasiveness and weig

19、ht of evidence. DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題 研 究 2011 33 the patented composition, Unionmelt Grade 2 0 , and the accused composition, Lincolnweld 6 6 0 . The patent under which Unionmelt is made claims essentially a combination of alkaline earth metal silicate and calcium fluoride; Unionmelt actua

20、lly contains, however, silicates of calcium and magnesium, two alkaline earth metal silicates. Lincolnwelds composition is similar to Unionmelts, except that it substitutes silicates of calcium and manganese - the latter not an alkaline earth metal - for silicates of calcium and magnesium. In all ot

21、her respects, the two compositions are alike. The mechanical methods in which these compositions are employed are similar. They are identical in operation and produce the same kind and quality of weld. DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題 研 究 2011 34 CN 答 復 OA修 改 超 范 圍專 題 研 究 Thanks DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent)專 題 研 究 2011 35 培 訓 效 果 問 題 搜 集1. 教 唆 侵 權 與 間 接 侵 權 的 定 義 及 區(qū) 別 ；2. 權 利 要 求 的 修 改 適 用 “ complete bar” or “ flexible bar” ；3. 從 屬 權 利 要 求 變 為 獨 立 權 利 要 求 后 的 禁 反 言 如 何 適 用 。