제법한정물건 청구항(product-by-process claim)의 해석에 관한 새로운 제안
A New Suggestion on Interpretation of a Product-by-process claim
0
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper summarizes that, during prosecution, in researched four countries, the U.S.A., Japan, Europe and Korea, a product-by-process claim is being interpreted as the product itself without considering the relevant process. Furthermore, this paper summarizes that, after issuance, the interpretational methodology of a product-by-process claim has not been settled, being distant from being an indisputable law. We, authors, proclaim that (1) a claim must be interpreted based on what was invented, disclosed and claimed by the inventor (applicant), and therefore (2) a product-by-process claim whose essence is the process must be interpreted considering the claimed process and (3) a product-by-process claim whose essence is the product itself must be interpreted without considering the relevant process. This paper further proclaims that a product-by-process claim must be consistently interpreted regardless of its stage, before or after the issuance. To so proclaim, this paper has found that unrestricted application of the broadest reasonable interpretation rule to a product-by-process claim is not corresponding to what the applicant invented, disclosed and claimed.
Abstract
This paper summarizes that, during prosecution, in researched four countries, the U.S.A., Japan, Europe and Korea, a product-by-process claim is being interpreted as the product itself without considering the relevant process. Furthermore, this paper summarizes that, after issuance, the interpretational methodology of a product-by-process claim has not been settled, being distant from being an indisputable law. We, authors, proclaim that (1) a claim must be interpreted based on what was invented, disclosed and claimed by the inventor (applicant), and therefore (2) a product-by-process claim whose essence is the process must be interpreted considering the claimed process and (3) a product-by-process claim whose essence is the product itself must be interpreted without considering the relevant process. This paper further proclaims that a product-by-process claim must be consistently interpreted regardless of its stage, before or after the issuance. To so proclaim, this paper has found that unrestricted application of the broadest reasonable interpretation rule to a product-by-process claim is not corresponding to what the applicant invented, disclosed and claimed.
참고문헌 (30)
- Robert J. Young, "The construction of product-by-process claims - A study in enlightened compromise", Official Journal of EPO, Special Edition, 11th European Judges' Symposium (2003)
- 清水千春, "プロダクト・バイ・プロセス・クレームについて－今更聞けないシリーズ(9)－", 知財管理, 58(8), pp.1105~ (2008)
- 윤태식, "프로덕트 바이 프로세스 청구항, in 특허법주해I" (2010), 박영사
- 조영선, "특허법 개정판", pp.1~ (2009), 박영사
- Vincent J. Napoleon, "Impact of Global Patent and Regulatory Reform on Patent Strategies for Biotechnology", U. Pitt. J. Tech. L. & Pol'y, 9, pp.3~ (2008)
- Shubha Ghosh, "Patents and the Regulatory State: Rethinking the Patent Bargain Metaphor After Eldred", Berkeley Tech. L.J., 19, pp.1315~ (2004)
- Jeremy T. Marr, "Foreseeability As a Bar to the Doctrine of Equivalents", B.C. Intell. Prop. & Tech. F., 2003, pp.103101~ (2003)
- 정차호, "미국특허침해소송에서의 청구항 해석", 지식재산, 3(2) (2008), 한국지식재산연구원
- Philippe Ducor, "In re Deuel: Biotechnology Industry v Patent Law", E.I.P.R., 18(1), pp.35~44 (1996)
- Eric P. Mirabel, "Product-By-Process Claims: A Practical Perspective", 68 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 4-11 (1986)
- 조현래, "특수한 형식의 특허청구범위 해석에 대한 연구", pp.2007
- 조현래, "Product by Process Claim에 대한 특허침해 판단 -Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp. 판결을 대상으로-", 법학연구, 50(1), pp.137~160 (2009), 법학연구소
- Helen W. Nies, "Dissents at the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Review", 45 Am. U. L. Rev. 1519 (1996)
- 吉田広志, "プロダクト・バイ・プロセス・クレイムの特許適格性と技術的範囲（１）", 知的財産法政策硏究, 12, pp.269~ (2006)
- 佐藤安紘, "プロダクト・バイ・プロセス・クレームの解釈", 東京大学法科大学院ローレビュー -, 3 (2008)
- 南条雅裕, "プロダクト・バイ・プロセス・クレームの権利解釈", パテント, 55(5) (2002)
- 北原潤一, "特許侵害訴訟におけるプロダクト・バイ・プロセス・クレームの解釈－いわゆる「同一性説」への問題提起－", L&T : law & technology, 31, pp.156~ (2006)
- 특허청, "특실심사지침서", ~ (2007)
- 반용병, "특별한 사정이 있는 경우 Product by process claim의 청구범위 해석", 지식재산21 (2009), 특허청
- 장완호, "청구범위 해석의 이중성에 관한 고찰", 특허법원 개원 10주년 기념논문집, pp.354~ (2009), 특허법원
- 주기동, "특별한 특허청구항의 권리범위", 법조, 56(6), pp.62~101 (2007), 법조협회
- 조영선, "Product by Process Claim을 둘러싼 법률관계", 특허판례연구, pp.143~144 (2009), 박영사
- Robert A. Hodges, "Black Box Biotech Inventions: When a "Mere Wish or Plan" Should Be Considered an Adequate Description of the Invention", Ga. St. U. L. Rev., 71, pp.831~835 (2001)
- 특허청, "특허법 및 실용신안법 개정경과 설명자료", 155~ (2007)
- Joel Miller, "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation", J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y, 88, pp.279~ (2006)
- Michael Risch, "The Failure of the Public Notice in Patent Prosecution", 21 Harv. J. Law & Tech. 179 (2007)
- William J. Blonigan, "Road Under Construction: Administrative Claim Interpretations and the Path of Greater Deference from the Federal Circuit to the Patent Office", AIPLA Quarterly J., 35, pp.415~ (2007)
- Bey, Dawn-Marie, "The Unreasonableness of the Patent Office's 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation' Standard", American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal, 37(3) (2009)
- Janet A. Gongola, "Annealing Steel: The USPTO's Application of the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard for Claim Construction", PLI, 2009, pp.976, 147~156
- Yusing Ko, "Note, An Economic Analysis of Biotechnology Patent Protection", 102 Yale L.J. 777, pp.795~796 (1992)