مطالعه تطبیقی معیارهای ثانویه احراز گام ابتکاری اختراع در پرتو رویه قضایی ایالات متحده آمریکا، اتحادیه اروپا و بریتانیا

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

ارزیابی و احراز گام ابتکاری اختراع به عنوان قلب نظام اختراعات، گرچه همواره مورد چالش در نظام‌های حقوقی مختلف دنیا بوده است، لیکن به مرور زمان به دلیل توسعه فنون و صنایع مختلف و بروز فناوری‌های جدید از اهمیت روزافزونی برخوردار می‌باشد. در برخی نظام‌های حقوقی، رویه قضایی به مرور زمان معیارهای گوناگونی را معرفی نموده است، که برخی تحت عنوان معیارهای اصلی و برخی به عنوان معیارهای ثانویه شناخته می‌شوند. اگرچه ارزیابی و احراز گام ابتکاری در غالب موارد بر اساس معیارهای اصلی صورت می‌گیرد که سابقه طولانی‌تری در رویه قضائی کشورهای مورد مطالعه دارد، لیکن با پیچیده‌تر شدن اختراعات، معیارهای ثانویه توسعه یافته و اهمیت روزافزونی یافته‌اند. نظام‌های مورد بحث در این پژوهش در زمینه شناسایی معیارهای ثانویه به عنوان نظام‌هایی پیشرو مورد مطالعه قرار گرفته‌اند. اما رویکرد حقوق ایران در این زمینه چندان روشن نمی‌باشد. نظر به اهمیت موضوع از یک سو و سکوت قانونگذار ایرانی در قانون مصوب 1310 و 1386 و قانون اخیرالتصویب حمایت از مالکیت صنعتی سال 1403 از سوی دیگر و فقدان رویه قضایی راهگشا، در این تحقیق سعی شده است با مطالعه رویه قضایی ایالات متحده، اتحادیه اروپا و بریتانیا معیارهای ثانویه رایج تبیین گردد تا بسترهای نظری مناسب برای قضات ایرانی به هنگام ارزیابی گام ابتکاری فراهم گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative study of the secondary Considerations for assessment of inventive step of the patent in the light of the jurisprudence of the United States of America, the European Union and the United Kingdom

نویسندگان [English]

  • Reza Arabzadeh 1
  • Mirghasem Jafarzadeh 2
1 PhD Student of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor in Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Behehshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Although the evaluation and determination of the inventive step of an invention, as the heart of the patent system, have always been a challenge in various legal systems around the world, it has become increasingly important over time due to the development of various techniques and industries and the emergence of new technologies. In some legal systems, judicial procedure has introduced various criteria over time, some of which are known as primary considerations and some as secondary considerations. Although the assessment and determination of the inventive step in most cases are based on the main criteria which have a longer history in the judicial practice of the countries studied, as the inventions become more complex, the secondary considerations have become increasingly important. The systems discussed in this research have been studied as leading systems in the field of identifying secondary considerations. But the approach of Iranian law in this field is not very clear. Considering the importance of the issue on the one hand and the silence of the Iranian legislator in the law of 1310 and 1386 and the new law of 1403 on the protection of industrial property on the other hand and the lack of clear jurisprudence, in this research it has been tried to study the jurisprudence of the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom. Common secondary considerations are explained in order to provide suitable theoretical bases for Iranian judges when assessing inventive step.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Invention
  • Inventive Step
  • Obviousness
  • Patent
  • Secondary Considerations

مراجع

Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet Oy (1986) 11 R.P.C. (3d) 470 (British Case). Available at: https://ca.vlex.com/vid/beloit-can-ltd-v-681781489
Biogen Inc. v. Medeva Plc. (1997) (British Case). Available at:
            https://academic.oup.com/rpc/article-abstract/114/1/1/1597374
Cornish, W.R. (1999). Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trademarks and Allied Rights. Fourth Edition. Oxford: Oxford Publication.
Fox, David L. (2010). U.S Patent Opinions and Evaluations. first edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
G.W. Thornton & Sons Ltd and Others v Parks-Cramer Company and Others (1966) R.P.C 407. (British Case). Available at: https://vlex.co.uk/vid/g-w-thornton-sons-793184221
Genentech v. Wellcome Foundation (1989) R.P.C 147, CA (British Case). Available at: https://academic.oup.com/rpc/article-abstract/106/21/613/1625565?redirectedFrom=PDF
J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atlantic Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (American Case). Available at:
            https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/1061999.html
Jafarzadeh, Mirghasem and Mahmoudi Asghar (2005). Substantive conditions of patent protection from the point of view of judicial procedure and Patent Office. Legal Research Review, 8 (42), 69-148 (In Persian)
Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co., 335 U.S. 560, 572 (1949) (American Case). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/335/560/
Kelley v. Coe 99 F.2d 435 (D.C. Cir. 1938). (American Case). Available at:
            https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/kelley-v-coe-no-887516579
KSR International Co v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (American Case). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/398/
Martin and Biro Swald LD. v. H.Millwood LD. (1956) R.P.C 125 (British Case). Available at: https://academic.oup.com/rpc/article/73/6/125/1671544
McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001). (American Case). Available at:
            https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/1481531.html
Merck & Co. v. Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1376–1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005). (American Case). Available at:
            https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/1050503.html
Mirhosseini, Seyyed Hassan (2008). Law of Patents. First Edition. Tehran: Mizan Publication. (In Persian)
Najafi, Hamed (2017). Inventive Step in Patent Law. First Edition. Tehran: Majd Publication. (In Persian)
National Sweeper Co. v. Bissell Carpet Sweeper Co. 249 F. 196, 198 (2d Cir. 1918) (American Case). Available at:
            https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/1957/29-327-2.html
Pessers, L.W.P. (2015). The evolution of the inventiveness requirement. first edition. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Pieper v. S.S. White Dental Mfg. Co. 228 F. 30, 37 (7th Cir. 1915). (American Case). Available at:
            https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/398/
Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007). (American Case). Available at:
            https://casetext.com/case/pharmastem-therapeutics-inc-v-viacell
Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 285 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1960) (American Case). Available at:
            https://www.leagle.com/decision/1960786285f2d5011641
Saint-Gobain PAM SA v Fusion Provida Ltd and Electrosteel Castings Ltd (2005) EWCA Civ 177 (American Case). Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff70f60d03e7f57ea6eb7
Salehi Zahabi, Jamal (2009). Patent; A Comparative Approach. First Edition. Tehran: Enteshar Company. (In Persian)
Samuel Parkes & Co v Cocker Brothers (1929) 46 R.P.C. 241, CA, 248. (British Case). Available at:
            https://www.jurisdiction.com/parkes.htm
Sirilla, George M. (1999). 35 U.S.C. 103: F 35 U.S.C. 103: From Hotchkiss to Hand to Rich, the Obvious Patent Law Hall-of-Famers, UIC Review, 32 (2), 437-580
Sharp & Dohme Inc. v. Boots pure drug company LD. (1928) 45 R.P.C. 153. (British Case). Available at:
            https://academic.oup.com/rpc/article/45/6/153/1637022
Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U.S. 486 (1876) (American Case). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/93/486/
T 0134/93 () of 16.11.1995 (European Case). Available at:
            https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t930134eu1
T 0192/82 (Moulding composition) of 22.03.1984 (European Case). Available at: https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t820192ep1
T 0203/93 (MITSUBISHI/Wafer) of 01.09.1994 (European Case). Available at:
            https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t930203eu1
T 0231/97 (Emissionsarme Dispersionsfarben/ CLARIANT) of 21.03.2000 (European Case). Available at:
            https://www.epo.org/de/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t970231du1T 0271/84 (Gas purification) of 18.03.1986 (European Case). Available at:
T 0273/92 () of 18.08.1993 (European Case). Available at:
            https://www.epo.org/de/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t920273du1
T 0330/92 () of 10.02.1994 (European Case). Available at:
            https://www.epo.org/de/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t920330du1
T 0605/91 (Railroad line bed/ INDUSTRIAL PREFABRICATI) of 20.07.1993 (European Case). Available at:
            https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t910605eu1
T 0626/96 (Commercial success/ Water tap) of 10.01.1997 (European Case). Available at: https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t960626eu1
T 0754/89 () of 24.04.1991 (European Case). Available at:
            https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t890754eu1
T 0833/99 () of 17.04.2002 (European Case). Available at:
            https://www.epo.org/fr/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t990833fu1
T 0943/92 (Sportschuh/ADIDAS) of 10.04.1995 (European Case). Available at:
            https://www.epo.org/de/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t920943du1
T 0986/92 () of 28.09.1994 (European Case). Available at: Available at:
            https://www.epo.org/boards-of-appeal/decisions/pdf/t920986fu1.pdf
T 1192/09 () of 28.06.2013 (European Case). Available at:
            https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t091192eu1
T 1212/01 (Pyrazolopyrimidinones for the treatment of impotence/PFIZER LIMITED ET AL) of 03.02.2005 (European Case). Available at:
            https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t011212eu1
T 1936/13 (OLANZAPINE/Lesvi) of 27.06.2017 (European Case). Available at:
            https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t131936eu1
T 1989/08 () of 21.07.2010 (European Case). Available at:
            https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t081989eu1
Teva UK Limited & Anor v AstraZeneca AB (2014) EWHC 2873 (Pat) (British Case). Available at:
            https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2014/2873.html
Traitel Marble Co. v. U T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co. 18 F.2d 66, 67 (2d Cir. 1927) (American Case). Available at:
            https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/18/66/1479984/
United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50–51 (1966) (American Case). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/39/
 
 

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 27 اسفند 1403
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 13 خرداد 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 31 تیر 1404

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار