论文部分内容阅读
原告诺基亚公司诉被告上海华勤通讯技术有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷一案在上海市第一中级人民法院一审宣判~1,法院认为原告专利的权利要求所要保护的装置包含功能性限定的技术特征,但说明书没有对装置本身如何配置的具体实施方式进行充分公开,从而认定此纯功能性限定的装置保护范围不清楚,无法判定侵权成立,从而驳回了原告的全部诉讼请求。近期,上海市高级人民法院也以类似的理由维持了一审判决~2。“功能性限定”本就是受到行业内长期关注的热点话题,上述案例又涉及了特定的技术领域和权利要求撰写形式,即涉及
Plaintiff Nokia v. Shanghai Hutchison Telecom Technology Co., Ltd. against infringement of invention patent case dispute in Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court verdict ~ 1, the court held that the plaintiff patent claims the device to be protected include a functional definition of the technical features However, the specification does not fully disclose the specific implementation of the device itself. Therefore, it is found that the scope of the purely limited device protection is not clear and the infringement can not be determined, thereby rejecting the plaintiff’s entire claim. Recently, the Shanghai Higher People’s Court also held the first instance verdict for similar reasons. “Functional Constraints ” This is the hot topic of long-term concern within the industry, the case involves a specific technical areas and the form of claim writing, that is involved