Archive

2005年11月 的Archive

專利侵權與永久禁制令

2005年11月29日 評論已關閉

美國最高法院已同意復審聯邦巡迴上訴法院對於 eBay 和 Half.com 線上拍賣網站的專利侵權訴訟所作成的判決 (eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, U.S., No. 05-130, review granted 11/28/05)。最高法院將裁定以下法律議題:「在判定專利侵權成立後,除認定有特殊情況外,法院是否一定要發出永久禁制令」。此外,最高法院要求當事人提出訴書說明另一個法律議題:「在判斷對專利侵權者發出禁制令的適當時機方面,最高法院是否應重新檢討相關判例,其中包括 Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1908)」。

USPTO’S PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT: FISCAL YEAR 2005

2005年11月28日 評論已關閉

根據 2005 年會計年度美國專利商標局的「績效與責信報告 (Performance and Accountability Report)」,該局收到 406,302 件專利申請案,此件數創歷史新高。在此會計年度裡,USPTO 核准了 165,485 件專利,其中包括 151,079 件發明專利、13,395 件新式樣專利,以及 816 件植物專利。自 1790 年起算,該局核准的專利數目已超過 7,000,000 件。

連結:
績效與責信報告全文

Categories: 時事分析報導 Tags:

Phillips v. AWH Corp.:AWH 向美國最高法院提出訴願

2005年11月20日 評論已關閉

AWH Corp. 日前向美國最高法院提出訴願,請求最高法院准予調閱 (Petition for Certiorari) CAFC 對 Phillips v. AWH 乙案做成的全院聯席 (en banc) 判決 (Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005))。AWH 所提出的法律問題如下:

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Federal Circuit is correct in holding that all aspects of a district court’s patent claim construction may be reviewed de novo on appeal. [聯邦巡迴上訴法院的以下見解是否正確:聯邦地方法院所做成的專利權項範圍解讀的所有觀點均可於上訴時重新審理 (review de novo)。]

事實上,CAFC 法官 Haldane R. MayerPauline Newman 在本案全院聯席判決當中已表達反對多數法官見解的意見 (dissent opinion),其表示 CAFC 堅持「專利權項的解讀屬於法律議題 (a matter of law) 而不涉及事實的判斷」是一種徒勞且荒謬的作法。一般認為,「de novo 審理原則」是造成 CAFC 經常撤銷聯邦地方法院所做成的專利權項解讀的主要原因。

Timeline of Disposition

  • Phillips v. AWH Corp. (on petition for certiorari)
  • Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Phillips IV: en banc)
  • Phillips v. AWH Corp., 376 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Phillips III: petition for rehearing en banc granted)
  • Phillips v. AWH Corp., 363 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Phillips II: affirmed)
  • Phillips v. AWH Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25199 (D. Colo. 2003) (motion for summary judgment of non-infringement granted)
  • Phillips v. AWH Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27298 (D. Colo. 2002) (Phillips I: claim construction)

Procedural History

  • This action was initiated on February 3, 1997. On October 3, 2000, a “Markman” hearing was conducted following which the parties filed motions for summary judgment. This ruling is intended to resolve the disputes concerning claim construction for the ’798 Patent. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27298, 1-2 (D. Colo. 2002)
  • “[T]he Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. Upon reconsideration the Court’s Order of May 8, 2002 is VACATED, and the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement is GRANTED." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25199 (D. Colo., 2003)
  • “On appeal, the court determined that, while the district court erroneously considered the term ‘baffle’ to be in means-plus-function format, based on the court’s construction of the patent, and because the defendants did not use acute or obtuse angles in its panels, it would affirm the judgment of noninfringement.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 363 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
  • The CAFC agreed to rehear the appeal en banc and vacated the judgment of the panel (Phillips v. AWH Corp., 376 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2004)), and reversed the portion of the court’s judgment addressed to the issue of infringement.
total of 1879593 visits