{"title":"专利诉讼中使能关系理论与明显性理论的协调","authors":"Roy D. Gross","doi":"10.5195/TLP.2012.97","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article examines the balance between advancing one's arguments that a patent is invalid for lack of enablement and also arguing that a patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the prior art. This is significant with regards to arguments made by an expert in his or her expert report or at trial. A clear litigation strategy is thus recommended prior to reaching the expert report stage in a patent litigation.","PeriodicalId":185385,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"HARMONIZING THE DOCTRINES OF ENABLEMENT AND OBVIOUSNESS IN PATENT LITIGATION\",\"authors\":\"Roy D. Gross\",\"doi\":\"10.5195/TLP.2012.97\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Article examines the balance between advancing one's arguments that a patent is invalid for lack of enablement and also arguing that a patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the prior art. This is significant with regards to arguments made by an expert in his or her expert report or at trial. A clear litigation strategy is thus recommended prior to reaching the expert report stage in a patent litigation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":185385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-04-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5195/TLP.2012.97\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/TLP.2012.97","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
HARMONIZING THE DOCTRINES OF ENABLEMENT AND OBVIOUSNESS IN PATENT LITIGATION
This Article examines the balance between advancing one's arguments that a patent is invalid for lack of enablement and also arguing that a patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the prior art. This is significant with regards to arguments made by an expert in his or her expert report or at trial. A clear litigation strategy is thus recommended prior to reaching the expert report stage in a patent litigation.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
