北京市高级人民法院2011年知识产权审判新发展(专利部门节选)  

Latest Developments in Trial of IP Cases by Beijing Higher People's Court in 2011(Abridged Part on Patent)

作　　者：劉曉軍 陳錦川[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京市高级人民法院知识产权庭

出　　处：《中国专利与商标》2012年第2期29-40,共12页China Patents & Trademarks

摘　　要：专利行政案件关于区别技术特征是否属于常规技术手段或是否产生意外技术效果的认定在创造性的判断中,如果认为某项技术特征属于本领域的常规技术手段,或者认为该技术特征没有产生意料之外的技术效果,专利复审委员会可以要求无效宣告请求人提供相应的证据。同样,在相关诉讼中,法院在必要时也可要求专利复审委员會或無效宣告請求人提供相應的證據。The IP Tribunal of the Beijing Higher People＇s CourtPatent administrative cases Determination of whether distinctive technical features are common technical means or produce unexpected techni- cal effect In assessing inventiveness, if a technical feature is a common technical means in the art or it is deemed not to have produced unexpected technical effect, the Patent Re- examination Board （PRB） may invite the party requesting in- validation to produce relevant evidence. Likewise, in the rele- vant lawsuit, if necessary, the court may also invite the PRB or invalidation requester to produce relevant evidence.

关 键 词：高级人民法院 专利 知识产权 北京市 技术效果 审判 行政案件 特征 

分 类 号：TU243[建筑科学—建筑设计及理论]