查詢結果分析
來源資料
第1筆 /總和 1 筆
/ 1 筆
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | PECVD機臺在臺專利訴訟之分析:韓商Jusung Engineering公司對美商AKT公司=Analysis on a PECVD Patent Infringement Case in Taiwan: Jusung Engineering Co., Ltd. against AKT Inc. |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 陳秉訓; 董雅薇; 羅才舒; 何靖雯; | 書刊名 | 真空科技 |
卷期 | 27:4 2014.12[民103.12] |
頁次 | 頁37-42 |
分類號 | 440.6 |
關鍵詞 | 專利訴訟; 擬制新穎性; 請求項解釋; PECVD; Patent litigation; Legally-fictional novelty; Claim construction; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 2004年韓商Jusung Engineering公司在台灣新竹地方法院對美商AKT公司和Applied Materials公司提起專利訴訟。系爭專利是有關於PECVD機台的技術,特別關於真空腔體的結構。2009年地方法院做出不侵權的判決。Jusung Engineering公司不服而上訴至智慧財產法院。智財法院於2010年做出不侵權的判決。專利權人敗訴的主要原因是系爭專利違反「擬制新穎性」的規定而無效。「擬制新穎性」指未公開的但申請日較早專利申請案如果揭露後專利申請案的發明時,後申請案即不應獲得專利權。本文針對智財法院判決進行分析,發現主要爭點在於請求項的解釋。因為說明書未陳述PECVD機台的腔體某部分為「不可拆解」,故法院認為和前申請案相同。對此,本文認為應從專利寫作手法進行改善,而本文會提出寫作上的建議。 |
英文摘要 | In 2004, a Korean company, Jusung Engineering Co., Ltd., brought a patent law suit in the Taiwan Hsinchu District Court against an American company, AKT Inc., for the infringement of Jusung's vacuum chamber patent applied in a PECVD equipment. In 2009, the district court ruled against Jusung. Then, Jusung appealed to the Taiwan Intellectual Proper Court. In 2010, the IP Court held no infringement mainly on the ground that the patent at disputed did not meet the "legally-fictional novelty" requirement. The requirement provides that if a prior, unpublished patent application discloses the claim invention of a latter application, the latter application should be rendered unpatentable or revoked. This paper is intended to explore the IP Court's decision, finding that the key issue was claim construction. Because the specification did not explain some part of the PECVD chamber is "not decomposed," the IP Court held the patent at disputed was the same as such the prior application. For that, this paper suggests that a way to avoid such defect should look to patent drafting. This paper also provides some suggestions about patent drafting. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。