论文部分内容阅读
美国联邦巡回上诉法院案号:729 F.3d 13692013年9月11日阅读提示本案初审中,原告St.Jude Medical Inc.起诉被告Access Closure Inc.侵犯包括Janzen专利在内的3项专利,被告不服一审判决并上诉。上诉法院认为地区法院错误认定35 U.S.C.S.§121规定的安全港条款能够让Janzen专利由于重复授权而无效。由于Janzen专利与其同族专利不具有一致性,安全港条款在本案中不适用。本案讨论了专利重复授权
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 729 F.3d 136920 September 11, 2013 In the first instance, Plaintiff St.Jude Medical Inc. sued defendant Access Closure Inc. for infringing three patents, including the Janzen patent, and the defendant refused to accept First instance verdict and appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the District Court had wrongly concluded that the safe harbor provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 121 could invalidate the Janzen patent due to duplicate authorizations. Due to the inconsistency between the Janzen patent and its patent family, Safe Harbor does not apply in this case. This case discusses the patent duplicate authorization