论文部分内容阅读
抵触申请制度是为了追求专利的绝对新颖性。本文所涉及的两宗专利侵权诉讼引起了两宗专利无效案件,其中外观设计专利无效案,即使检索到该外观设计已公开在申请日以前向国务院专利行政部门提出过申请,并记载在申请日以后公告的专利文件中,如发明专利附图中,但是苦于发明专利类型无法作为外观设计专利的抵触申请文件,该外观设计无效案一直处于困局。本文从案件本质思考、被告方的应对策略、被告提交的证据和案件的结果走向共四个方面展示了被告如何成功应对原告的专利狙击。分析思考案例的同时,探讨扩大抵触申请的定义基础,即发明、实用新型和外观设计三种专利类型能互相作为抵触申请文件,从而使我国专利的绝对新颖性制度更完善和合理。
The application system is to pursue the absolute novelty of the patent. Two cases of patent infringement involved in this article caused two cases of patent invalidation, of which the design patent was invalid. Even if the design was found to have been open to the Patent Administration Department of the State Council before the filing date, it was filed on the filing date After the announcement of the patent documents, such as the invention patent drawings, but suffer from the type of invention patents can not be used as a design patent of the conflicting application documents, the design invalid case has been in a dilemma. This article from the nature of the case, the defendant’s coping strategies, the evidence submitted by the defendants and the results of the case to a total of four aspects of how the defendant successfully dealt with the plaintiff’s patent sniper. While analyzing the thinking cases, the paper explores the definition basis of expanding the contradiction application. That is, the three types of inventions, utility models and designs can be used as contradictory application documents, so that the absolute novelty system of patents in our country can be more perfect and reasonable.