#本文僅代表作者觀點(diǎn),不代表IPRdaily立場(chǎng),未經(jīng)作者許可,禁止轉(zhuǎn)載#
“若公開(kāi)且為明確要求保護(hù)的技術(shù)特征,滿足技術(shù)特征特定化以及本領(lǐng)域的普通技術(shù)人員可預(yù)測(cè),則應(yīng)當(dāng)被認(rèn)定為捐獻(xiàn)給公眾?!?br/>
來(lái)源:IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)(iprdaily.cn)
作者:司重陽(yáng) 徐雯瓊 上海元好知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)代理有限公司
本文主要通過(guò)Psc Computer Products, Inc與Foxconn International, Inc. And Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd一案的爭(zhēng)議,討論捐獻(xiàn)原則(disclosure-dedication)的解釋。
即,若公開(kāi)且為明確要求保護(hù)的技術(shù)特征,滿足技術(shù)特征特定化以及本領(lǐng)域的普通技術(shù)人員可預(yù)測(cè),則應(yīng)當(dāng)被認(rèn)定為捐獻(xiàn)給公眾。
本案的涉案專利為“Cam-Type Retainer Clip for Heat Sinks for Electronic Integrated Circuits” 一種用于電子集成電路的散熱器的凸輪型固定夾,其權(quán)屬為PSC。
本發(fā)明的權(quán)利要求1為
一種安裝在模塊中用于電子半導(dǎo)體器件提供冷卻的散熱器組件,該模塊具有與之固定裝置,并且該散熱器包括水平底表面和導(dǎo)熱部分,所述導(dǎo)熱部分與位于半導(dǎo)體器件上表面,并且上表面上至少有形成一個(gè)通道的翅片結(jié)構(gòu)
一種改進(jìn)實(shí)施例,所述散熱器保持夾包括:若干細(xì)長(zhǎng)的彈性金屬帶,所述金屬帶設(shè)置于任一所述通道之中;所述任一金屬帶在的一端設(shè)置有與固定裝置連接的接合裝置,所述金屬帶非應(yīng)力狀態(tài)下,其中心部分在所述散熱器底座的上表面為非接觸狀態(tài);以及凸輪型固定夾,其軸承安裝在金屬帶中心位置……(后略)
In a heat sink assembly providing cooling to an electronic semiconductor device wherein the device is mounted in a module, the module having means for engagement with a retainer clip, and the heat sink having a generally flat bottom surface and heat conducting engagement with the semiconductor device upper surface and a plurality of fins on the upper surface defining at least one channel, the improvement comprising a heat sink retainer clip including:
an elongated, resilient metal strap received in one of the channels of the heat sink having holding means at each end engaging the engagement means on the module, the center portion of the strap spaced a predetermined distance above the upper surface of the heat sink base when the strap is not in tension; and a cam-type latch pivotally mounted in the center portion of the strap and including a cam with a bearing surface……
法院根據(jù)相應(yīng)的比較,認(rèn)為彈性金屬帶與凸輪型固定夾為本發(fā)明的核心部分,
即,本案的技術(shù)核心在于,通過(guò)不同的材料對(duì)其進(jìn)行制造則是區(qū)分產(chǎn)品的關(guān)鍵所在。
One way that vendors can differentiate their products is by manufacturing these clip parts out of different materials.
與被控侵權(quán)專利(權(quán)屬Foxconn)對(duì)比后,其差異為:PSC的選用的材料是金屬的,而Foxconn的選用的材料是塑料的。
PSC's clip is made of metal, while Foxconn's clip is made of plastic.
但是Foxconn提出,PSC將塑料這一技術(shù)特征作為公開(kāi)內(nèi)容向公眾提供,F(xiàn)oxconn不構(gòu)成侵權(quán)。
Foxconn, in turn, argued that PSC had dedicated clips with plastic parts to the public, and moved for summary judgment of non-infringement on that ground.
即在說(shuō)明書(shū)中闡述了,“這種彈性金屬帶應(yīng)當(dāng)由具有一定彈性應(yīng)力的金屬制成,包括但不限于不銹鋼等,但是其余金屬也可以被用作該金屬帶的原材料”。以及“其余的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)設(shè)備采用塑料或者其他金屬部分那就可能會(huì)造成更加高昂的成本”。
In reaching that conclusion, the district court noted the specific language in the written description stating that: "the elongated strap is made of a resilient metal such as stainless steel although other resilient materials may be suitable for the strap," '239 patent, col. 4, ll. 49-51 (emphasis added), and that "other prior art devices use molded plastic and/or metal parts that must be cast or forged which again are more expensive metal forming operations." Id., col. 2. ll. 39-41 (emphasis added).
即,權(quán)利要求沒(méi)有保護(hù)“plastic”,而采用了“metal”這一具體的描述。
According to the district court, these passages demonstrate that, at the time that the inventor applied for the '239 patent, he knew that other materials, including plastic, could be used to make "parts" of his invention, and that the inventor asserted the metal design of the '239 patent as an improvement over the prior art. The '239 patent, however, does not claim plastic parts, but instead includes an explicit "metal" limitation. The district court applied Johnson to conclude that the disclosure of unclaimed materials in the '239 patent's written description dedicated those materials to the public. This dedication prevented PSC from using the doctrine of equivalents to extend the scope of its patent claims to include plastic.
通過(guò)前述這一點(diǎn),法院PSC以書(shū)面描寫并公開(kāi)了采用塑料制成的技術(shù)特征,但是并未將其納入權(quán)利要求的保護(hù)范圍,這就意味著其將塑料這一技術(shù)特征捐獻(xiàn)給了公眾。因此Foxconn不會(huì)被因?yàn)槭褂昧耸褂盟芰线@一捐獻(xiàn)給公眾的技術(shù),而被視為等同侵權(quán)。
The district court here determined that because the written description of the '239 patent disclosed clips made of plastic parts without claiming plastic, it had dedicated plastic clips to the public. Foxconn, therefore, could not infringe the '239 patent by equivalents because its plastic clips used materials in the public domain.
對(duì)于這一理論的合理性
專利這一公開(kāi)換取保護(hù)的規(guī)則能夠激勵(lì)專利權(quán)人去劃定他們認(rèn)為可專利的最廣泛的權(quán)利要求,并將這些廣泛的權(quán)利要求提交給專利商標(biāo)局進(jìn)行審查。公開(kāi)這一專利的重要公共通知功能,通過(guò)這種機(jī)制,公眾了解哪些創(chuàng)新是所要求的發(fā)明的主題,哪些是在公共領(lǐng)域。因此,披露-奉獻(xiàn)規(guī)則既公平又符合公共利益。
捐獻(xiàn)原則滿足以下兩個(gè)條件:(1)技術(shù)特征特定化,有且只有明確作為某一權(quán)利要求聲明保護(hù)的化合物或物質(zhì)的替代物在說(shuō)明書(shū)中被特定化披露時(shí),才能視為被捐獻(xiàn)。(2)本領(lǐng)域的普通技術(shù)人員可預(yù)測(cè),通過(guò)說(shuō)明書(shū)就可以理解該技術(shù)特征已被披露,并且權(quán)利要求書(shū)中并未對(duì)該技術(shù)特征明確保護(hù)。
司重陽(yáng)作者專欄
1、國(guó)外專利案例解讀(一)專利是否充分公開(kāi):美國(guó)The Incandescent Lamp Patent案
2、國(guó)外專利案例解讀(二)司重陽(yáng):從日本特許法104條第三項(xiàng)看專利無(wú)效訴訟中的拖延行為
3、國(guó)外專利案例解讀(三)算法專利:萬(wàn)代南宮夢(mèng)プログラム及びサーバ
4、國(guó)外專利案例解讀(四)日本特許廳公報(bào)專利案例解讀,グリップ補(bǔ)助具操作方法
徐雯瓊作者專欄
國(guó)外專利案例解讀(三)算法專利:萬(wàn)代南宮夢(mèng)プログラム及びサーバ
(原標(biāo)題:國(guó)外專利案例解讀<五> 專利中的捐獻(xiàn)原則:Psc Computer Products, Inc與Foxconn International, Inc. And Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd)
來(lái)源:IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)(iprdaily.cn)
作者:司重陽(yáng) 徐雯瓊 上海元好知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)代理有限公司
編輯:IPRdaily辛夷 校對(duì):IPRdaily縱橫君
注:原文鏈接:國(guó)外專利案例解讀(五) 專利中的捐獻(xiàn)原則(點(diǎn)擊標(biāo)題查看原文)
「關(guān)于IPRdaily」
IPRdaily是全球領(lǐng)先的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)綜合信息服務(wù)提供商,致力于連接全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)與科技創(chuàng)新人才。匯聚了來(lái)自于中國(guó)、美國(guó)、歐洲、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國(guó)等15個(gè)國(guó)家和地區(qū)的高科技公司及成長(zhǎng)型科技企業(yè)的管理者及科技研發(fā)或知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)負(fù)責(zé)人,還有來(lái)自政府、律師及代理事務(wù)所、研發(fā)或服務(wù)機(jī)構(gòu)的全球近100萬(wàn)用戶(國(guó)內(nèi)70余萬(wàn)+海外近30萬(wàn)),2019年全年全網(wǎng)頁(yè)面瀏覽量已經(jīng)突破過(guò)億次傳播。
(英文官網(wǎng):iprdaily.com 中文官網(wǎng):iprdaily.cn)
本文來(lái)自IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)(iprdaily.cn)并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意,并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場(chǎng),如若轉(zhuǎn)載,請(qǐng)注明出處:“http://m.globalwellnesspartner.com
判賠470萬(wàn)美元!珠海冠宇與ATL國(guó)外專利訴訟進(jìn)展更新
中華商標(biāo)協(xié)會(huì)發(fā)布“2023年度國(guó)際商標(biāo)監(jiān)測(cè)預(yù)警報(bào)告”,亮點(diǎn)有哪些?
文章不錯(cuò),犒勞下辛苦的作者吧