enpan's Patent & Linux practice
潘榮恩專利部落格、專利實務、專利筆記與Linux
enpan's Patent & Linux practice
(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/, http://enpan.blogspot.com/)
(接受委託安排課程)
ronpan@gmail.com,
enpan@msn.com
2026年6月23日 星期二
人的工作 v. AI的做工
怎麼解釋專利範圍的經典案例 - IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. (CAFC 2015)
侵權成立,就改機器,重新設計"TopOff machines"->redesigned to "TopOff Automatic Stapling Machine"。基於前次勝訴,原告/專利權人Imaginal再次提出侵權訴訟,這次涉及系爭專利'402之外,還提到專利權人更早的專利 - US5,904,789('789)。
特別地,系爭專利'402說明書提到了'789的技術內容,提到其中「視覺引導固定裝置(vision guided fastening apparatus)」,但是'402則解釋所提出的固定裝置並沒有使用'789的視覺引導系統,而是一種機械式的引導方式,據此排除'789的視覺引導技術,並在'402的Claim 1以負面表示方式說明移動固定工具時並沒有使用視覺引導系統 - "moving the fastening tool without the use of a vision guidance system in a direction generally perpendicular relative to the base and through the open access area of a module until the fastening tool is located at a target fastening location"。
這時來看被告侵權產品,被告Leggett經第一次侵權訴訟敗訴後,重新設計TopOff機器,移除其中定位軟體與其中用於定位的機械裝置 - gripper feet,地方法院解釋被告侵權產品為採用光學感測器(照相機)的電腦系統,用於控制夾持裝置移動床墊模組置放在床框上。
2026年6月18日 星期四
2026年6月16日 星期二
著名就可以任性 - 隨筆
- the similarity of the marks
- the relatedness or proximity of the goods and/or services
- the strength of the plaintiff's mark including the level of commercial recognition
- marketing channels used including the similarity or dissimilarity between the consumers of the parties' goods and/or services
- the degree of care likely to be exercised by purchasers in selecting goods and/or services, • the defendant's intent in selecting its mark
- the evidence of actual confusion
- the likelihood of expansion in product lines, etc.
用途發明中用語“EFFECTIVE AMOUNT”的明確性議題 - Ex parte Skuballa (BPAI 1989)
The common phrase “an effective amount” may or may not be indefinite. The proper test is whether or not one skilled in the art could determine specific values for the amount based on the disclosure. See In reMattison, 509 F.2d 563, 184 USPQ 484 (CCPA 1975). The phrase “an effective amount . . . for growth stimulation” was held to be definite where the amount was not critical and those skilled in the art would be able to determine from the written disclosure, including the examples, what an effective amount is. In reHalleck, 422 F.2d 911, 164 USPQ 647 (CCPA 1970). The phrase “an effective amount” has been held to be indefinite when the claim fails to state the function which is to be achieved and more than one effect can be implied from the specification or the relevant art. In reFredericksen, 213 F.2d 547, 102 USPQ 35 (CCPA 1954). The more recent cases have tended to accept a limitation such as “an effective amount” as being definite when read in light of the supporting disclosure and in the absence of any prior art which would give rise to uncertainty about the scope of the claim. In Ex parteSkuballa, 12 USPQ2d 1570 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), the Board held that a pharmaceutical composition claim which recited an “effective amount of a compound of claim 1” without stating the function to be achieved was definite, particularly when read in light of the supporting disclosure which provided guidelines as to the intended utilities and how the uses could be effected.
US7772209
可實施性:
明確性:
2026年6月12日 星期五
專利範圍過於明確形成的限制 - Dynapass IP Holdings LLC v. Bank of America Corp. (CAFC 2026)
CAFC解釋系爭專利Claim 1,認為專利範圍明確地描述在接收密碼(password)之前,已經從通行碼(passcode)與憑證(token)產生密碼,也就是無法將"receiving the password"涵蓋分別接收通行碼與憑證的解釋。
2026年6月4日 星期四
程度用語不明確議題以及宣告 - Enzo Biochem, Inc., v. Applera Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2010)
地方法院階段:
專利權人Enzo於2004在地院對Applera提出侵權告訴,原本是提出6件專利,上訴後為4件專利。
CAFC判決文:https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/09-1281.pdf