北大法宝推出“法宝双语案例”栏目。本栏目选取近期热门司法案例进行双语发布，每两周一期，欢迎关注！感谢新老朋友对北大法宝的大力支持，我们会持续为大家提供更好的法律信息服务。本周推送第一百四十期，主要关注涉发明专利权无效行政纠纷案例！
本期双语案例推送山东瀚霖生物技术有限公司与国家知识产权局等发明专利权无效行政纠纷案等涉发明专利权无效行政纠纷案例。
目录
Contents
1. 山东瀚霖生物技术有限公司与国家知识产权局等发明专利权无效行政纠纷案
Shandong Hanlin Biological Technology Co., Ltd. v. China National Intellectual Property Administration, et al. (case regarding administrative dispute over invalidation of invention patent right)
2. 阿尔法拉瓦尔股份有限公司与国家知识产权局、第三人SWEP国际公司发明专利权无效行政纠纷案
Alfa Laval Corporate AB v. China National Intellectual Property Administration and SWEP International Corporation AB (as a third party) (case regarding administrative dispute over invalidation of invention patent right)
3. 北京万生药业有限责任公司与国家知识产权局专利复审委员会、第三人第一三共株式会社发明专利权无效行政纠纷案
Beijing Orient Tide Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office, and Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited (as a third party) (case regarding administrative dispute over invalidation of invention patent right)
一、山东瀚霖生物技术有限公司与国家知识产权局等发明专利权无效行政纠纷案
Shandong Hanlin Biological Technology Co., Ltd. v. China National Intellectual Property Administration, et al. (case regarding administrative dispute over invalidation of invention patent right)
【裁判摘要】
一、专利制度保护的是利用自然规律解决技术问题的技术方案，而不是自然规律本身。因此，对于权利要求是否清楚地限定专利保护范围的问题，需要审查的内容是权利要求是否清楚地限定了专利保护的技术方案本身，而不是对技术方案所利用的自然规律是否进行了清楚地阐述和限定。
二、行为人将他人技术成果非法申请为自己的专利，在该非法申请的专利权依法返还他人后，转而对该专利权提出无效宣告请求的，明显违背诚信原则，人民法院不予支持。
[Judgment Abstract]
1. The patent system is designed to protect the technical solutions which are used to solve technical problems by harnessing the rules of nature rather than the rules of nature itself. Accordingly, upon ascertaining whether the claims of a patent define clearly the protection scope of the patent, a people's court should examine whether such claims clearly define the technical solutions protected by the patent, rather than whether the rules of nature used by the technical solutions are clearly stated and defined.
2. Where a party has illegally applied for a patent on the technical achievements of others and then files a claim for declaring the invalidation of the patent right after returning the patent right in accordance with law, the said party obviously violates the principle of good faith, and the people's court should not support its claim.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.500316424
[CLI Code] CLI.C.500316424(EN)
二、阿尔法拉瓦尔股份有限公司与国家知识产权局、第三人SWEP国际公司发明专利权无效行政纠纷案
Alfa Laval Corporate AB v. China National Intellectual Property Administration and SWEP International Corporation AB (as a third party) (case regarding administrative dispute over invalidation of invention patent right)
【裁判摘要】
一、专利无效宣告程序中，修改方式作为手段，应当着眼于实现对权利要求书的修改满足不得超出原说明书和权利要求书记载的范围以及不得扩大原专利的保护范围两大法律标准的立法目的，兼顾行政审查行为的效率与公平保护专利权人的贡献，而不宜对具体修改方式作出过于严格的限制，否则将使得对修改方式的限制纯粹成为对专利权人权利要求撰写不当的惩罚。
二、当权利要求的修改系将从属权利要求的全部或部分附加技术特征补入其所引用的独立权利要求时，判断修改后的独立权利要求是否扩大了原专利的保护范围，应以作为修改对象的原专利的独立权利要求的保护范围为基准。
[Judgment Abstract]
1. The restrictions on the specific amendment methods for claims in the procedures for declaring the invalidation of a patent should focus on achieving the legislative purpose of meeting the two legal standards that the amendment to the claims does not exceed the scope recorded in the original specifications and claims and that the scope of protection of the original patent should not be expanded, while consideration should be also given to the efficiency of administrative examination actions and the contribution to fair protection of the patentee. It is inappropriate to set too strict restrictions on the specific amendment methods; otherwise, the restrictions on the amendment methods may simply become a punishment upon the patentee for inappropriate drafting of the claims.
2. When the amendment to the claims supplements the additional technical features, in whole or in part, of the subordinate claims to the independent claims cited, the protection scope of the independent claims of the original patent subject to modification should be used to determine whether the amended independent claims have expanded the protection scope of the original patent.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.118613472
[CLI Code] CLI.C.118613472(EN)
三、北京万生药业有限责任公司与国家知识产权局专利复审委员会、第三人第一三共株式会社发明专利权无效行政纠纷案
Beijing Orient Tide Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office, and Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited (as a third party) (case regarding administrative dispute over invalidation of invention patent right)
【裁判摘要】
1.马库什方式撰写的化合物权利要求一直被视为结构式的表达方式，而非功能性的表达方式。马库什权利要求限定的是并列的可选要素而非权利要求，应当符合专利法和专利法实施细则关于单一性的规定。马库什权利要求应当被视为马库什要素的集合，而不是众多化合物的集合，应当理解为具有共同性能和作用的一类化合物。
2.在无效阶段对马库什权利要求进行修改必须给予严格限制，允许对马库什权利要求进行修改的原则应当是不能因为修改而产生新性能和作用的一类或单个化合物，但是同时也要充分考量个案因素。
3.马库什权利要求创造性判断应当遵循创造性判断的基本方法，即专利审查指南所规定的“三步法”。意料不到的技术效果是创造性判断的辅助因素，通常不宜跨过“三步法”直接适用具有意想不到的技术效果来判断专利申请是否具有创造性。
[Judgment Abstract]
1. The compound claims written in the form of a Markush claim have always been regarded as the structural expression rather than the functional expression. The Markush claim, which defines parallel optional elements rather than claims, should comply with the provisions on singularity as provided for in the Patent Law and the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law. The Markush claims should be considered as a collection of Markush elements rather than a collection of numerous compounds, and thus should be understood as a class of compounds with common properties and effects.
2. The modifications to the Markush claims in the invalidity phase must be strictly limited, and the principle under which the modification to the Markush claims is allowed should be that a class of compounds or a single compound with new properties and effects cannot be produced as a result of the modification, with individual factors taken into full account.
3. The inventive step of the compound claims written in the form of a Markush claim should be determined according to the basic method of determination of an inventive step, namely the "three-step methodology" in the patent examination manual. Since an unanticipated technical effect is an auxiliary factor to determine an inventive step, it is usually inappropriate to skip the "three-step methodology" and directly use unanticipated technical effects to determine whether a patent application involves an inventive step.
|
