Filter

Open

28

OCT

2021

Newsletter: Volume 8 (2021) Chinese IP Information

(English and Chinese)

  • The main statistics of the first half year of 2021 issued by CNIPA
  • 13,800 cases of administrative adjudication on patent infringement disputes were filed in the first half year in China
  • The consideration of "raising of questions" for the judgment of inventive step
  • Determination of Commonsense Evidence

The main statistics of the first half year of 2021 issued by CNIPA

In the first half of the year339, 000 cases of invention patent were authorized in China. As of the end of June 2021, there were 3, 324,000 cases of valid invention patent, a year-on-year increase of 23.0%, and 33, 300 cases of accepted PCT international patent application, a year-on-year increase of 12.6 %.

In the first half of the year, there were 1, 327, 000 cases of utility model patent granted and 393, 000 cases of industrial design patent granted, with the number of 28, 400 cases of patent reevaluation closed and 4, 300 cases of announcement of invalidation closed.

In the first half of the year, there were 3,724,000 cases of trademarks registration in China. As of the end of June 2021, the number of valid registered trademarks was 33,548,000, a year-on-year increase of 22.4%. And 2,954 applications for the Madrid International Trademark Registration from the applicants were received.

In the first half of the year, the CNIPA examined 82,000 cases of trademark opposition and tired 188,000 cases of trademark review.

In the first half of the year, the CNIPA identified 87 products protected by geographical indications, examined and approved 254 cases of registration of geographical indications as collective trademarks and certification trademarks, with 3355 market entities for the use of special geographical indication. As of June 2021, an accumulative total of 2,478 products protected by geographical indications have been identified, an accumulative total of 6,339 geographical indications registered as collective trademarks and certification trademarks have been examined and approved, and 12,789 market entities using geographical indications have been examined and approved.

In the first half of the year, 7,629 IC layout designs were registered and issued certificates, which continued maintaining rapid growth.

In the first half of the year, there were 13,800 administrative adjudication cases involving patent infringement disputes nationwide. The patent and trademark pledge financing throughout the country amounted to 107.4 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 25.9%; the number of pledge projects was 6,195, a year-on-year increase of 32.4%.

As of the end of June, the average examination period for invention patents in our country has been reduced to 19.4 months, the examination period for high-value patents has been reduced to 13.4 months, and the average examination period for trademark registration has stabilized within 4 months.

In the first half of the year, the number of granted invention patents of foreign applicants in China was 54,000, a year-on-year increase of 30.0%; the trademark registration of foreign applicants in China amounted to 90,000, a year-on-year increase of 7.5%, wherein the invention patent authorization and trademark registration of the US applicants in China respectively increased by 35.0% and 8.9% year-on-year.

On July 4, the National Medical Products Administration and the CNIPA jointly issued the Implementation Measures for the Early Resolution Mechanism of Drug Patent Disputes (Trial). On July 5, the CNIPA issued the Administrative Adjudication Measures for the Early Resolution Mechanism of Drug Patent Disputes, and the Supreme People's Court also issued related judicial interpretations.

Based on clarifying the central authority for handling major patent infringement disputes in the newly revised Patent Law, the CNIPA issued the Administrative Adjudication Measures for Major Patent Infringement Disputes on May 31 this year.

From: CNIPA

July 14, 2021

13,800 cases of administrative adjudication on patent infringement disputes were filed in the first half year in China

In the first half of the year, all intellectual property management departments in China steadily promoted the administrative adjudication on patent infringement disputes, focusing on key areas online and offline, and obtained good achievement and efficiency. Cases of administrative adjudication of patent infringement disputes amounted to 13,800 in total.

Cities and regions such as Beijing, Zhejiang, Shanghai, Liaoning, Jiangsu, Anhui and Hubei have continued to step up efforts to advance their work, taking multiple measures simultaneously, showing brilliant points and achieving remarkable results. Six central provinces including Shanxi and Hunan and eighteen cities in four provinces including Shanxi, Hebei, Shandong, Henan have respectively signed administrative protection collaboration agreements, established a cross-regional administrative protection collaboration leading group, and constructed collaboration mechanisms of administrative adjudication case such as clues transfer, investigation and execution, joint enforcement, mutual recognition and sharing. The CNIPA, Hunan Provincial Intellectual Property Office(IPO), Sichuan Provincial IPO, etc. continuously innovate methods, "online + offline" have held special training for the backbone of administrative adjudication cases in various regions, and consistently strengthened the system-wide construction of administrative adjudication capabilities. Wuhan issued the Administrative Rules for Patent Administrative Adjudication and Administrative Mediation Enforcement (Trial), formulated and improved mechanisms for patent administrative enforcement like administrative adjudication on patent infringement disputes, effectively promoting the pilot work of building a demonstration zone for administrative adjudication of patent infringement disputes. All regions have continually strengthened the government of patent infringement, given full play to the advantages of administrative protection, and sustainably kept a good environment for innovation and business.

For further step, the CNIPA will continue to thoroughly carry out the requirements for comprehensively strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights and intensifying the administrative adjudication work in the field of intellectual property infringement disputes, and coordinate all regions to make steady headway for the administrative adjudication of patent infringement disputes, focus on the pilot demonstration construction of administrative adjudication, and strengthen the guidance of administrative adjudication of patent infringement disputes, so as to sustainably improve the level of administrative adjudication ability across the whole system..

From: CNIPA

August 18, 2021

The consideration of "raising of questions" for the judgment of inventive step(2020) Supreme People’s Court Final Administrative Judgment No. 183

The main takeaway of the trial

The inventive step of a patent technical solution can derive from "solution to problems" or "raising of questions"; when the technical progress have difficulty in finding problems, if not consider whether the "raising of questions " is obvious or not for those of ordinary skill in the art, it will be caught in hindsight and the inventive step of the technical solution will be underestimated.

Case Introduction

The CNIPA made the No. 38122 Invalidation Request Examination Decision (hereinafter referred to as the “sued decision”), announcing that claims 1 and 6 of the utility model patent with its patent number ZL201520653490.5 and name of "Yuntai" are invalid, and the patent maintains valid based on claims 2-5 and 7-18.

DJI refused to accept the sued decision, claiming that this patent has found and solved technical problems that were not noticed in the prior art, and achieved beneficial technical effects, it has involved inventive step.

In accordance with the technical solutions of claims 1 and 6, the proposed PTZ uses the locking structure provided on the pitch axis structure or the roll axis structure to prevent the motor on the pitch axis structure or the roll axis structure to prevent the electric motor on the pitch axis structure or the roll axis structure randomly rotating in the non-working state of PTZ, whereby securing the fixation of determined position when the PTZ is out of service. The ingenious design of the structure above described solves the problem of that the PTZ in the prior art cannot be fixed or the structure is complex in the non-working state, accordingly making it easy for its storage and for users to carry and use.

The technical means described above did not disclose any technical information or in other ways in public before this patent was published. Therefore, claims 1 and 6 of this patent involves novelty and inventive step. The Supreme People's Court ruled on September 25, 2020 to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

Typical meaning

The second instance of the Supreme People's Court held that whether that raising new technical problems or finding technical defects in the prior art should be considered in the creative judgment needs to be determined according to the specific case.

In the majority of cases, raising technical problems and discovering that are the motivation and starting point of invention and creation, and the formation of technical solutions for invention has a direct cause-and-effect relationship with the "raising of questions".

In most cases, it is easier to "raise a question" and "find a problem", but it is relatively difficult to find a technical solution to the problem.

However, "raising a question " and "finding a problem" may be more important than "solving a problem" in some specific situations.

Sometimes, the difficulty of technological progress lies in finding problems. Once the problem to be solved is determined, we can obtain technical solutions to solve technical problems through methods including a combination of conventional technical means in the field, technology transfer between similar technical fields, logical technical deduction, limited trials, etc.

In this particular case, the lack of consideration that "whether the' raising of problem' is obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art" in the judgment process of inventive step may cause hindsight in the creative judgment.

In this case, though this patent raise the specific technical question of " the locking of motor shaft of the PTZ in the non-working state", when the PTZ is in the "non-working state" outside the range of the electrical motor adjustment angle, the defects that "randomly swinging, inconvenient to keep, carry and use" of this type of PTZ are obvious and can be found directly. When the ordinary skilled in the art or even users of PTZ face with the defect, they will naturally come up with that it is caused by the technical problem that the PTZ cannot be locked in the "non-working state" .

Therefore, the technical problem that “been found and solved by the patent and not been noticed in the prior art” claimed by DJI, that is, the “locking of the electrical motor shaft of the PTZ in a non-working state” does not involve obviousness. In the judgment of inventive step of the patent in this case, only in terms of the "raising of questions", it should be determined that the prior art has given corresponding technical enlightenment.

From: The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court

August 13, 2021

Determination of Commonsense Evidence——(2020) Supreme People’s Court Final Administrative Judgment No. 35

The main takeaway of the trial

Commonsense evidence usually refers to references that record basic technical knowledge in the field such as technical dictionaries, technical manuals and textbooks; it needs to specifically determine whether references other than technical dictionaries, technical manuals, and textbooks are common knowledge evidence with factors including the carrier form, content, characteristics, audiences, and spreading scope of the literature, etc.

Case Introduction

In the case of an administrative dispute over an invention patent application refusal and reexamination involving the appellant CNIPA, the appellee Jiangsu Targetpharma Biomedicine Laboratories Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Targetpharma Company) and Changzhou High-tech Research Institute of Nanjing University (hereinafter referred to as NJU Research Institute) , it involves the invention application titled "A variant of tumor-targeting TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) and its application " with its application number 201110187700.2, (hereinafter referred to as this application).

Targetpharma Company and NJU Research Institute held that volume 8 of "Frontiers in Cancer Research" is neither a textbook nor a technical dictionary, it is only a comprehensive collection of the latest achievements in the cancer research field of the corresponding year, and it is not commonsense evidence.

The Reexamination Request Review Decision No. 116649 issued by the CNIPA (hereinafter referred to as the accused decision) regarded the volume 8 as commonsense evidence, which existed a mistake, so it filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (hereinafter referred to as the court of first instance). The court of first instance held that volume 8 of "Frontiers in Cancer Research" is just a journal on medical oncology research, and the CNIPA did not determine whether the specific technical knowledge documented in volume 8 of "Frontiers in Cancer Research" is commonsense, but directly used it as commonsense evidence, which existed errors.

The CNIPA refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the Supreme People’s Court, claiming that Volume 8 of "Frontiers in Cancer Research" is not a journal. It only has an ISBN book number instead of an ISSN number. The NGR-related technical knowledge involved in volume 8 of "Frontier Cancer Research" cited in the sued decision is "Frontier Cancer Research" No. 8 is commonsense that already known in the field instead of cutting-edge advancement.

The Supreme People's Court ruled on August 13, 2020 to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

Typical meaning

The second instance of the Supreme People's Court held that, firstly, it is about commonsense and its proof method.

For one thing, the identification of commonsense in related technical fields directly determines the technical knowledge and cognitive abilities that ordinary technicians in the field should have, thus imposing an important influence on the judgment of inventive step.

Therefore, the identification of commonsense should be based on definiteness with support of sufficient evidence or reasons, and it should not be too arbitrary.

Generally speaking, about whether relevant technical knowledge is commonsense, in principle, it can be proved by commonsense evidence in technical fields such as technical dictionaries, technical manuals, textbooks, etc. In the case of that it is difficult to prove by commonsense such as technical dictionaries, technical manuals, textbooks, etc., it also can be fully proved through the mutual corroboration of multiple pieces of non-common knowledge evidence in the field, such as multiple patent documents, journals and magazines. However, this method of proof should be followed stricter certification standards.

Secondly, commonsense evidence refers to documents that record basic technical knowledge in the field, such as technical dictionaries, technical manuals, and textbooks. If there is no opposite evidence, the technical knowledge documented in technical dictionaries, technical manuals, and textbooks can be presumed to be commonsense.

For documents other than technical dictionaries, technical manuals, when judging that whether they are common-sense evidence recording basic technical knowledge in the field, textbooks, it needs to be specifically identified in consideration of carrier form, content and characteristics of the document, audience, and scope of spread.

For the other thing, the specific judgment on whether volume 8 of the "Frontiers in Cancer Research" involved is commonsense evidence.

First of all, in terms of carrier format, volume 8 of "Frontiers in Cancer Research" is a book

The CIP of volume 8 of "Frontiers in Cancer Research" shows that its book number is ISBN978-7-81086-559-3. ISBN is the antonomasia of international standard book number, which has been used in China for many years, so it should be recognized as a book. The judgment of first instance determined that it belonged to a journal, which was lack of accuracy and should be corrected.

Secondly, in terms of content and characteristics, though volume 8 of "Frontiers in Cancer Research" is a book, it differs from a general textbook.

The preface of the book points out that it tries its best to introduce the latest developments of cancer research worldwide with the simplest language to colleagues and related researchers, featured by inclusiveness, advancement and focus debates, it has the characteristics of many documents including monographs, reviews, reviews, popular science readings, etc.

It indicates that the book is aimed at introducing the latest developments in cancer research around the world, rather than general technical knowledge in the field of cancer research, and is not involved in the common textbooks. In conclusion, in view of audience and scope of spread, it is difficult to identify that volume 8 of "Frontiers in Cancer Research" is a textbook.

The "Introduction" on the copyright page of the book records that "this book can be used as a reference book for related professional researchers, and can also be read and used by related personnel in universities and hospitals", which also indicates that it is not a textbook in ordinary meaning, but a research reference book for professionals.

In addition, there is no other evidence in this case indicating that the book has become a common reference book for researchers in related fields.

Combined with the above factors, it can be determined that while volume 8 of "Frontiers in Cancer Research" belongs to a book, it is not a textbook in general sense, which means it is insufficient to be recognized as commonsense evidence.

From: The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court

August 16

  • 国家知识产权局2021年上半年主要统计数据
  • 中国上半年专利侵权纠纷行政裁决立案1.38万件
  • 问题的提出”在创造性判断中的考量
  • 公知常识性证据的认定

国家知识产权局2021年上半年主要统计数据

上半年,我国发明专利授权 33.9 万件。截至 2021 6 月底,我国发明专利有效量为 332.4 万件,同比增长 23.0%。受理PCT国际专利申请3.33万件,同比增长12.6%

上半年,我国发明专利授权 33.9 万件。截至 2021 6 月底,我国发明专利有效量为 332.4 万件,同比增长 23.0%。受理PCT国际专利申请3.33万件,同比增长12.6%

上半年,我国商标注册 372.4 万件。截至 2021 6 月底,有效注册商标量为 3354.8 万件,同比增长 22.4%。收到申请人马德里国际商标注册申请2954件。

上半年,我局完成商标异议案件审查 8.2 万件,各类商标评审案件审理 18.8 万件。

上半年,我局认定地理标志保护产品 87 个,核准地理标志作为集体商标、证明商标注册 254 件,核准使用地理标志专用标志市场主体 3355 家。截至 2021 6 月,累计认定地理标志保护产品 2478 个,累计核准地理标志作为集体商标、证明商标注册 6339 件,核准使用地理标志专用标志市场主体 12789 家。

上半年,我国集成电路布图设计登记发证 7629 件,继续保持较快增长。

上半年,全国专利侵权纠纷行政裁决案件立案数 1.38 万件。全国专利、商标质押融资金额 1074 亿元,同比增长 25.9%;质押项目数 6195 个,同比增长 32.4%

截至6月底,我国发明专利平均审查周期已压减至19.4个月,高价值专利审查周期压减至 13.4 个月,商标注册平均审查周期稳定在 4个月以内。

上半年,国外申请人在华发明专利授权 5.4 万件,同比增长 30.0%;国外申请人在华商标注册量为 9.0 万件,同比增长 7.5%。其中美国申请人在华发明专利授权、商标注册同比分别增长 35.0%和 8.9%。

7月4日,国家药监局和国家知识产权局共同发布了《药品专利纠纷早期解决机制实施办法(试行)》。7月5日,国家知识产权局发布了《药品专利纠纷早期解决机制行政裁决办法》,最高人民法院也发布了相关的司法解释。

在新修改的专利法中对处理重大专利侵权纠纷的中央事权进行明确的基础上,我局于今年5月31日发布了《重大专利侵权纠纷行政裁决办法》。

摘自:国家知识产权局

2021714

中国上半年专利侵权纠纷行政裁决立案1.38万件

上半年,中国各知识产权管理部门扎实推进专利侵权纠纷行政裁决工作,聚焦线上线下重点领域,取得良好成效。各地专利侵权纠纷行政裁决案件立案共计1.38万件。

北京、浙江、上海、辽宁、江苏、安徽、湖北等地不断加大工作推进力度,多措并举、亮点纷呈、成效显著。山西湖南等中部六省、晋冀鲁豫四省十八市分别签署行政保护协作协议,设立跨区域行政保护协作工作领导小组,构建行政裁决案件线索移送、调查执行、联合执法、互认共享等协作机制。中国国家知识产权局及湖南省知识产权局、四川省知识产权局等不断创新方法、“线上+线下”对各地行政裁决办案骨干开展专题培训,持续加强全系统行政裁决能力建设。武汉印发《专利行政裁决、行政调解执法管理规则(试行)》,制定完善专利侵权纠纷行政裁决等专利行政执法工作机制,有效推进专利侵权纠纷行政裁决示范区建设试点工作。各地不断加大专利侵权治理力度,充分发挥行政保护优势,持续营造良好创新环境和营商环境。

下一步,中国国家知识产权局将继续深入贯彻落实全面加强知识产权保护和加强知识产权侵权纠纷领域行政裁决工作部署要求,统筹各地扎实推进专利侵权纠纷行政裁决工作,以组织开展行政裁决试点示范建设为抓手,加大专利侵权纠纷行政裁决工作指导力度,不断提升全系统行政裁决工作能力水平

摘自国家知识产权局商标局

2021818

“问题的提出”在创造性判断中的考量——2020)最高法知行终183

【裁判要旨】

专利技术方案的创造性既可以来源于“问题的解决”,也可以来源于“问题的提出”;当现有技术进步的难点在于发现问题时,如果不考虑“问题的提出”对本领域普通技术人员来说是否显而易见,可能会陷入后见之明并低估技术方案的创造性。

【基本案情】

国家知识产权局作出第38122号无效宣告请求审查决定(以下简称被诉决定),宣告专利号为ZL201520653490.5、名称为“云台”的实用新型专利的权利要求16无效,在权利要求2-57-18的基础上维持本专利有效。

大疆公司不服被诉决定,主张本专利发现并解决了现有技术中没有注意到的技术问题,取得了有益的技术效果,具备创造性。

根据权利要求16的技术方案,其提出的云台利用了在俯仰轴结构或横滚轴结构上设置锁定结构,以阻止俯仰轴结构或横滚轴结构上的电机在云台处于非工作状态下随意转动,从而保证了在云台处于非工作状态下可以进行确定的位置固定。通过上述结构的巧妙设计,解决了现有技术中的云台非工作状态下无法固定或者固定的结构复杂的问题,从而方便了云台保管以及用户的携带与使用。

上述技术手段在本专利被公开之前并没有任何技术资料或者以其他方式公开披露。因此,本专利权利要求16具备新颖性和创造性。最高人民法院于2020925日判决驳回上诉,维持原判。

【裁判意见】

最高人民法院二审认为,提出新的技术问题或者发现现有技术中存在的技术缺陷本身是否应该在创造性判断中予以考量,需要根据案件具体情况确定。

多数情况下,提出技术问题和发现技术问题是发明创造的动因和起点,发明创造技术方案的形成与“问题的提出”之间存在直接因果关系。

大多数情况下,“提出问题”和“发现问题”比较容易,找到解决问题的技术方案相对困难。

但是,不排除在特定情况下,“提出问题”“发现问题”可能比“解决问题”更重要。

有时候,技术进步的难点在于寻找问题,一旦要解决的问题被确定,则可以通过本领域常规技术手段的组合、相近技术领域之间的技术转用、合乎逻辑的技术推理、有限次试验等获得解决技术问题的技术方案。

在这种特定情况下,如果在创造性判断过程中缺乏关于“‘问题的提出’对本领域普通技术人员来说是否显而易见”的考量,可能导致创造性判断陷入后见之明的误区。

本案中,本专利虽然提出了“云台电机轴在非工作状态下的锁定”的具体技术问题,但是,当云台处于电机调整角度范围之外的“非工作状态”时,该类型云台所存在的“随意摆动、不便于保管、携带与使用”的缺陷是显性的、直接能够发现的,本领域普通技术人员、甚至是云台的使用者在面对该缺陷时,自然就会想到该缺陷是由于云台在“非工作状态”无法锁定位置这一技术问题而引发。

因此,大疆公司所主张的“本专利发现并解决了现有技术中没有注意到的”技术问题,即“云台电机轴在非工作状态下的锁定”不具有非显而易见性,本案专利的创造性判断中,仅就“问题的提出”而言,应当认定现有技术已经给出了相应的技术启示。

摘自:最高人民法院知识产权法庭

2021813

公知常识性证据的认定——2020)最高法知行终35

【裁判要旨】

公知常识性证据通常是指技术词典、技术手册、教科书等记载本领域基本技术知识的文献;技术词典、技术手册、教科书之外的文献是否属于公知常识性证据,需要结合该文献的载体形式、内容及其特点、受众、传播范围等因素具体认定。

【基本案情】

上诉人国家知识产权局与被上诉人江苏靶标生物医药研究所有限公司(以下简称靶标公司)、常州南京大学高新技术研究院(以下简称南大研究院)发明专利申请驳回复审行政纠纷案中,涉及申请号为201110187700.2、名称为“一种肿瘤靶向性肿瘤坏死因子相关凋亡配体变体及其应用”的发明专利申请(以下简称本申请)。

靶标公司、南大研究院认为,《肿瘤研究前沿》第8卷既不是教科书,也不是技术词典,仅为相应年度的肿瘤研究领域最新成果合编成卷的综述性质论文集,不属于公知常识证据。

国家知识产权局作出的第116649号复审请求审查决定(以下简称被诉决定)将之作为公知常识证据,存在错误,故向北京知识产权法院(以下简称一审法院)提起诉讼。

一审法院认为,《肿瘤研究前沿》第8卷仅为肿瘤医学研究方面的期刊,国家知识产权局未判定《肿瘤研究前沿》第8卷记载的具体技术知识是否为公知常识,而是直接将《肿瘤研究前沿》第8卷作为公知常识证据使用,存在错误。

国家知识产权局不服,向最高人民法院提起上诉,主张《肿瘤研究前沿》第8卷并非期刊,其仅有ISBN书号,而没有ISSN刊号,被诉决定所引用的《肿瘤研究前沿》第8卷中所涉及的NGR相关技术知识并非前沿进展,而是早已为本领域所熟知的公知常识。

最高人民法院于2020813日判决驳回上诉,维持原判。

【裁判意见】

最高人民法院二审认为,第一,关于公知常识及其证明方法。

首先,相关技术领域公知常识的认定,直接决定了该领域普通技术人员所应具备的技术知识和认知能力,进而对创造性判断具有重要影响。

因此,对于公知常识的认定应该以确凿无疑为标准,应该有充分的证据或者理由支持,不应过于随意化。

一般而言,对于相关技术知识是否属于公知常识,原则上可以通过技术词典、技术手册、教科书等所属技术领域中的公知常识性证据加以证明;在难以通过技术词典、技术手册、教科书等公知常识性证据予以证明的情况下,也可以通过所属领域的多份非公知常识性证据例如多篇专利文献、期刊杂志等相互印证以充分证明该技术知识属于公知常识,但这种证明方式应遵循更严格的证明标准。

其次,公知常识性证据是指技术词典、技术手册、教科书等记载本领域基本技术知识的文献。如无相反证据,技术词典、技术手册、教科书记载的技术知识可以推定为公知常识。

对于技术词典、技术手册、教科书之外的文献,判断其是否属于记载本领域基本技术知识的公知常识性证据,则需要结合该文献的载体形式、内容及其特点、受众、传播范围等具体认定。

第二,关于涉案《肿瘤研究前沿》第8卷是否属于公知常识性证据的具体判断。

首先,从载体形式看,《肿瘤研究前沿》第8卷属于图书。

《肿瘤研究前沿》第8卷的图书在版编目(CIP)显示其书号为ISBN978-7-81086-559-3ISBN是国际标准书号的代称,在我国已使用多年,故应当认定《肿瘤研究前沿》第8卷属于图书。一审判决认定其属于期刊杂志,有失准确,予以纠正。

其次,从内容及其特点看,《肿瘤研究前沿》第8卷虽然属于图书,却并不属于一般性教科书。

该书序言指出,其尽力以最通俗的语言将目前世界上肿瘤研究的最新进展介绍给同行及相关研究人员,具有专著、综述、述评、科普读物等诸种文献的特点,以包容性、先进性、焦点争论为特色。

这表明,该书旨在介绍世界肿瘤研究的最新进展,并非讲述肿瘤研究领域一般性技术知识,不属于通常意义上教科书。最后,从受众、传播范围方面看,亦难以认定《肿瘤研究前沿》第8卷属于教科书。

该书版权页“内容简介”记载,“本书可作为相关专业研究人员的参考用书,也可供高校、医院的相关人员阅读使用”,同样表明其并非通常意义上的教科书,而是专业研究人员的参考用书。

此外,本案并未有其他证据表明,该书在相关领域已经成为综合上述因素,可以认定《肿瘤研究前沿》第8卷虽然属于图书,但并非通常意义上的教科书,尚不足以认定属于公知常识性证据。

摘自最高人民法院知识产权法庭

2021816

About the Firm

Ge Cheng & Co Ltd.
Address Level 19, Tower E3, The Towers, Oriental Plaza, No 1 East Chang An Avenue, Beijing 100073, China.
Tel 86-10-8518 8598
Fax 86-10-8518 3600
Email davidcheng@gechengip.com , info@gechengip.com
Link www.gechengip.com

Related Newsletters

12
NOV
2021
12
NOV
2021
Newsletter: Volume 9 (2021) Chinese IP Information (English and Chinese) The influence of the mo...

Read More

10
SEP
2021
10
SEP
2021
Newsletter: Volume 7 (2021) Chinese IP Information (English and Chinese) Interpretation of Poli...

Read More

10
SEP
2021
10
SEP
2021
「医薬品特許紛争の早期解決メカニズムの実施のための措置(試行)」...

Read More

27
JUL
2021
27
JUL
2021
ブロックチェーン技術は、版権の保護と運用のために科学的および技術...

Read More

27
JUL
2021
27
JUL
2021
Newsletter: Volume 6 (2021) Chinese IP Information (English and Chinese) Block-chain technolo...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6