ARTICLE
31 January 2024

浅谈新颖性判断中的单独对比原则

CP
CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office

Contributor

CCPIT PATENT AND TRADEMARK LAW OFFICE is the oldest and one of the largest full-service intellectual property law firms in China. Our firm has 322 patent and trademark attorneys, among whom 93 are qualified as attorneys-at-law. We provide consultation, prosecution, mediation, administrative enforcement and litigation services relating to patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain names, trade secrets, trade dress, unfair competition and other intellectual property-related matters. headquartered in Beijing, we have branch offices in New York, Silicon Valley, Tokyo, Munich, Madrid, Hongkong, Shanghai,Guangzhou and Shenzhen.
新颖性作为专利授权必须具备的三性(新颖性、创造性、实用性)...
China Intellectual Property
CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office are most popular:
  • within Compliance topic(s)
  • with readers working within the Pharmaceuticals & BioTech and Law Firm industries

新颖性作为专利授权必须具备的三性(新颖性、创造性、实用性)之一,无疑非常重要。在专利审查阶段和复审无效阶段等对于权利要求进行审查时,新颖性的判断经常都是首先遇到的问题。例如,在专利审查阶段,如果发明和实用新型专利申请中的权利要求已经被认定相对于现有技术不具有新颖性时,一般不会再进行创造性相关的审查。新颖性的判断需要遵循诸多特有的原则,例如单独对比原则,这使得新颖性的判断看似比创造性的判断简单。然而,就该单独对比原则自身而言,也具有其独有的复杂性。本文将结合最高人民法院的典型案例来探讨新颖性判断中的单独对比原则。

文章正文请点击此处。

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More