( ) Vol.20 No.3 5. DOI: /j. jbitss ) [1] [2] , (17JJD820014); (2016Y1502);

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "( ) Vol.20 No.3 5. DOI: /j. jbitss ) [1] [2] , (17JJD820014); (2016Y1502);"

Laura Pierce
5 years ago
Views:

1 20 3 ( ) Vol.20 No JOURNAL OF BEIJING INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ( (SOCIAL ) SCIENCES EDITION) 2018May DOI: /j. jbitss ( ) 26 ( ) : ( ) : ; ; ; : DF523 : A : (2018) [1] [2] ( ) ( ( ) ) ( ) ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 26 : 60 : : (17JJD820014); (2016Y1502); (111 ) : (1970 ) @qq.com; (1989 ) byewhy@hotmail.com ( ) 26 ( ) : :(1) ;(2) ;(3) ;(4)

2 : ( ) : (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property RightsTRIPs) ( ) ( ) : ( ) 26 ( ) 26 TRIPs A TRIPs 30 ; 31 TRIPs 31 : 31 ( ) 26 TRIPs 31 TRIPs law TRIPs 31 [3] : : : (2015) ( ) 79 ; (2015) 213 ; (2013) ( ) 139 (2014) ( )

3 124 ( ) :(1) ;(2) TRIPs 31 (h) TRIPs 45 ;(3) TRIPs 31 [4] [5] : ( ) 2009 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) TRIPs 26 TRIPs ( ) 2009 ( ) ( ) 2004 ( )( ) 30 (2004) 581 (2001) 4 (2008) 8 124

4 : ( ) / ; 15 ; ; : (2009) 64 (2009) 64 (2010) ; (2011) 1174 ; (2006) ( ) 186 ; (2006) ( ) 12 ; (2014) 164 (2011) 869 ; (2014) 91 (2010) ; (2011) 1174 (2009) 64 (2009)

5 126 ( ) (City of Milwaukee v. Activated Sludge) 7 50 ; 1945 (Vitamin Technologists Inc. v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation) D 2006 ( ) : ebay :(1) ;(2) ;(3) ;(4) ( )I4I : 2010 I4I (I4I LTD. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp) I4I XML MS Word Word ; :(1) ;(2) ;(3) ;(4) ( ) ( ) I4I z4 (z4 v. Microsoft) (Finisar v. DirecTV) City of Milwaukee v. Activated Sludge 69 F.2d 577(7th Cir. 1934) Vitamin Technologists Inc. v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation146 F.2d 941 (9th Cir. 1945) Nerney v. New York Nerney v. New York 83F.2d 409(1936) Andrei lancu & W. Joss Nichols Balancing the Four Factors in Permanent Injunction Decisions: A Review ofpost-ebay Case Law 89 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc y Mercexchange LLC v. Ebay Inc401 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005);Ebay Inc v. Mercexchange547 U.S. 388 (2006) I4I LTD. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) z4 Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. No (Fed. Cir. Nov ) Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group Inc. Nos (Fed. Cir. Apr ) 126

6 : ( ) 26 (Non-Practicing EntitiesNPEs) ( ) % NPEs 80% [6]1-46 : ( ) ( ) 24 [7] TRIPs ( ) [8] : [9] TRIPs TRIPs 7 TRIPs 5 7 TRIPs d(1) : 1982 [10] [11] [12] ( ) U.S.C.&1337(d) (1) (2006) City of Milwaukee v. Activated Sludge 69 F.2d 577(7th Cir. 1934);Vitamin Technologists Inc. v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation146 F.2d 941(9th Cir. 1945);Nerney v. New York 83F.2d 409(1936);Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Labs. 849 F.2d (Fed. Cir. 1988) TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. 646 F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2011). (2014)

7 128 ( ) ; TRIPs ( ) 26?? 26?? (Polaroid v. Kodak) TRIPs? ( ) TRIPs ( ) : ; ( ) (2015) 358 Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Labs. 849 F.2d (Fed. Cir. 1988). (2014) 164 (2010) (2011) 1174 Polaroid v. Kodak U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts 16 USPQ2d 1481(1990) 128

8 : ( ) 26 ( ) :(1) (2) (3) [13] ( ) ( ) / ( ); (Paice L.L.C.v. Toyota Motor Corporation) 25 ( ) 6 (2009) 64 Paice L.L.C. V. Toyota Motor Corporation Paice L.L.C. v. Toyota Motor Corp. 504 F.3d 1293 (2007) 129

9 130 ( ) (Panduit Corp. v Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works Inc.) [14]39-43 ; ; [15] [16] % 10% : R<0>=(R<j>+F<i>-F<d>) E R<0> R<j> F<i> F<d> E ( ) [17] [18] [19] [20]57-66 ( ) ( ) 26 ( ) 26 4 NPEs Panduit Corp. v Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works Inc.575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978) Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp. 318 F. Supp (S.D.N.Y. 1970);Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp. 446 F.2d 295(2d Cir.);Unisplay S.A. v. American Electronic Sign Co. Inc. 69 F.3d n.7(fed. Cir. 1995) 130

10 : ( ) 26 : [1] MITCHEL G S. Implementing ebay:new problem in guiding judicial discretion and enforcing patent rights[j]. J.Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc Y200688(2): [2]. 45 [J]. ( )2001(5):3-11. [3] ANDREW C M. TRIPS ebay and denials of injunctive relief: is article 31 compliance everything? [J]. Columbia Law School Science and Technology Law Review200910(4): [4]. : [M]. 2006: [5].. ( ) [N] (3). [6] COLLEEN V CMARK A L. Patent holdup the ITC and the public interest[j]. Cornell Law Review2012(98):1-46. [7]. ( ) 24 [J]. 2016(2): [8]. [M].. : 1988: [9] Gene R S. Federal injunctions and the public interest[j]. The George Washington Law Review (51): [10] SCOTT A A. Justifying the public interest in patent litigation[j]. Indiana Law Journal2013(88): [11] LEMLEY M ASHAPIRO C. Patent holdup and royalty stacking[j]. Texas Law Review2007(85): [12]. [M]. : 1983: [13]. [J]. 2016(6): [14]. [J]. 2016(10): [15] MICHAEL C B. Compulsory licenses in the aftermath of ebay inc. v. MercExchangeL.L. C.:the courts authority to impose prospective compensatory relief for patent infringement[j]. The Federal Circuit Bar Journal2008(17): [16]. [J]. 2012(6): [17]. [J]. 2011(4): [18]. [M]. : 2013: [19]. [J]. 2011(2): [20]. [J]. 2013(4): The Limiting of Injunctive Relief for Infringement on Patent Based on the Article 26 of the Interpretation of Patent HUANG Yuye LU Tian (School of Intellectual Property Zhongnan University of Economics and Law Wuhan Hubei China) Abstract:The provisions of patent infringement claim in our country mainly originated from regulations of the real right object in the civil law. Confined to the traditional theory of civil law it has become a common practice in the field of patent. Article 26 of Patent Law Judicial Interpretation ( )is regarded as a breakthrough. It is difficult to define the public interest and reasonable costs. The current patent system in our country has not defined these concepts above as well. The United States has made useful attempts in the application of restrictions on injunction and alternative measures. From the legislative evolution and the existing judicial practice the public interest has nothing to do with the nature of the enterprise and the nature of the patent. It should be strictly limited in the areas such as public safety public health which have been stipulated by TRIPs. Article 26 may also apply when the patentee abuses the patent against the public interest. Reasonable costs are different from the voluntary royalties and compulsory licensing fees however it should be the full relief given to the infringer under the premise of the loss of reasonable compensation for the right. In the definition of reasonable costs the case Georgia -Pacific which founded 15 factors to determine the future use fee brings instructive enlightenment. In addition the patent infringement claims restriction should not be extended to temporary restraining order. Key words: patent injunction; four factor test; public interest; intellectual property right [ : ] 131

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a claim must be limited to

LEXICOGRAPHERS BEWARE AN EXPLICIT DEFINITION WILL LIMIT CLAIM SCOPE The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a claim must be limited to an explicit definition in the specification. In Sinorgchem