论文部分内容阅读
美国《专利法》第271节(g)款和《1930年关税法》第337节均规定了对美国方法专利的保护,但正如2004年发生的Kinik Co.v.International Trade Com’n.一案所揭示的,两者的保护标准存在着实质性差别。在本案中,美国国际贸易委员会认为美国《专利法》第271节(g)款中的“安全港”条款不适用于337条款程序,而联邦巡回上诉法院在上诉程序中支持了这一决定。这起案件表明,美国《专利法》和337条款在对方法专利的保护标准方面存在着差异,而这种保护标准的差异可能导致美国违反了根据GATT1947第3条和第20条、以及TRIPs协定第27条的规定所承担的义务。
Section 271 (g) of the U.S. Patent Act and section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 both provide for the protection of methodological patents in the United States, but as Kinik Co. v. International Trade Com’n. Case revealed that there is a substantial difference between the two protection standards. In this case, the ITC found that the “Safe Harbor” clause in Section 271 (g) of the U.S. Patent Law did not apply to Section 337 procedures and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals supported this in the appeals process Decided. This case shows that there is a difference between the United States Patent Law and Section 337 in the protection of method patents. Differences in such protection standards may result in the United States violating Article 3 and Article 20 of GATT 1947 and the TRIPs Agreement Article 27 obligations.