제법한정 물건청구항의 해석과 입증책임(하)

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Product-by-Process Claim is allowed when an inventor does not find an adequate language in defining his or her new technological invention at the time of filing. Even if he or she is allowed to use Product-by-Process Claims, the process language used in the claims make the scope of claims uncertain. In the US, EU and Japan, the courts interpret the process language in the claims as limitations on the invention when examining the filed claims. The trial courts, however, do not interpret the process languages as limitations in the infringement case. If an examiner proves the claimed product and the prior art identical or having little difference, the burden shifts to an applicant’s shoulder that he or she has to submit the rebuttal evidence that two products have unexpected characteristic differences. As to the chemical compound if an examiner shows the proof that the reaction material or reacting condition are the same, then an applicant has the burden to submit the rebuttal evidence. If the applicant does not, he or she will lose the case. If he or she does, then the decision will be made on whether the burden of proof is met.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅲ. 침해소송과 입증책임
• Ⅳ. 결론
• 〈참고문헌〉
• 〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 윤태식, "프러덕트 바이 프로세스에 관한 청구항" 45 : 2007

2 이상경, "특허심결취소소송에 있어서의 주장·입증책임론" 특허법원 1 : 2000

3 홍봉규, "특허심결취소소송에 있어서의 당사자의 역할" 한국공법학회 37 (37): 365-390, 2008

4 홍기문, "특수소송에 있어서 증명책임의 분배" 한국사법행정학회 8 : 1990

5 손용근, "의료과오소송의 입증경감에 관한 판례의 최근 동향" 대한민사법학회 7 : 1999

6 설민수, "민사 · 형사 재판에서의 입증의 정도에 대한 비교법적 · 실증적 접근" 대한변호사협회 (388) : 80-108, 2008

7 "미특허청심사지침(Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) (5th ed)"

8 Jong-Kyun Woo, "The Patent Court of Korea: An Overview of the Background"

9 박길채, "PBP청구항"

10 "Chisum on Patensts, Copyright 2004, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group"