检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:甄世辉[1]
出 处:《河北法学》2007年第12期160-165,共6页Hebei Law Science
摘 要:专利是推动社会进步、经济发展的重要制度保证。依法保护专利权、制裁侵犯专利权的行为,首要和关键的问题就在于对是否为专利侵权进行判定。"等同原则"是专利侵权判定的一项重要原则。然而,该原则的合理适用被中外专利、司法界喻为"专利诉讼中最富挑战性的难题",对"等同"的认定产生偏差将导致该原则在适用中标准不统一,严重影响司法的社会效果和司法的统一性。即力图对等同原则这一在国内外专利侵权判定中长期争论的问题再作一思考,以期对等同原则的科学适用和进一步完善进行一些有益的探讨。Patent system is an important insurance to promote social progress and economic development. As to the patent protection and fighting against patent infringement, the key issue is the judgment of patent infringement. The doctrine of equivalents is an important principle in judging patent infringement. However, the reasonable applicability of the principle was described by foreign patents and judiciary as "the most challenging problem of patent litigation. " The discrepancy in judging the "equivalents" in the application of this principle will produce inconsistent standard, hence seriously affected the social effect and the unity of judicial justice. This paper attempts to discuss the hot topic of the application of "doctrine of equivalents" in domestic and foreign patent infringement, aiming at instructive thinking about the scientific application and further improvement of "doctrine of equivalents".
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.222