彭哲，現(xiàn)任山東大學(xué)法學(xué)院副研究員。2012獲得美國(guó)華盛頓大學(xué)法學(xué)院法學(xué)博士學(xué)位。2012年在日本明治大學(xué)在中山信宏教授的科研團(tuán)隊(duì)中擔(dān)任共同研究員職位，與來(lái)自各國(guó)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法學(xué)者進(jìn)行合作研究。2013年就職于山東大學(xué)法學(xué)院，任副研究員。兼任山東省版權(quán)教學(xué)科研基地副主任、威海仲裁委員會(huì)仲裁員。先后發(fā)表A Panacea for Inequitable Conduct Problems or Kingsdown version 2.0？ The Therasense Decision and a Look into the Future of U.S. PatentLaw Reform， 16 Va. J.L. & Tech. 373 （2011）; Legislative Updates： China：Patent Law Amendment of 2008， CASRIP Newsletter， Vol. 16（1）；Case Summary： Amado v. Microsoft Corp. CASRIP Newsletter， Vol. 15 （3）等論文。美國(guó)聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院于2012年3月在My Space vs. Graphone Corporation 判例中引用了《A Panacea for Inequitable Conduct Problems or Kingsdown version 2.0？》一文。作為項(xiàng)目主持人承擔(dān)《行政監(jiān)管對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法律制度的影響》課題（司法部項(xiàng)目），《山東省藥品創(chuàng)新的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法律保障機(jī)制研究》（山東省社科項(xiàng)目），《大班教學(xué)：美國(guó)法學(xué)院的經(jīng)驗(yàn)考察與借鑒》（山東大學(xué)教學(xué)促進(jìn)與教師發(fā)展基金項(xiàng)目）。主講《知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法（全英文）》、《中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法（全英文，留學(xué)生課程）》等課程。
圖書目錄
Contents Preface i Chapter I?U.S. Claim Interpretation: Procedural Law A. U.S. Court System in General: Lawyers, Judges, Technical Experts 1. Claim Interpretation by Judges 2. Lawyers 3. Technical Experts B. Jurisdiction C. Evidence: Intrinsic Evidence vs. Extrinsic Evidence 1. Conflict Precedent Before Phillips 2. Phillips en banc Decision 3. The Hierarchy of the Evidence 4. How to Understand the “Hierarchy” D. First Instance: Two Step Analysis E. Second Instance: Appellate Review Standard 1. A Split among Federal Circuit Judges after Markman II 2. Cybor: Uniform Federal Circuit Case Law 3. Disagreements Continued after Cybor 4. The Supreme Court Teva Decision F. Procedures for Determining the Doctrine of Equivalents Chapter II?Chinese Claim Interpretation: Procedure Law A. Chinese Court System in General 1. Trial by Judges 2. Lawyers 3. Technical Experts in Claim Interpretation B. Evidence C. Jurisdiction D. First Instance—One step analysis E. Second Instance: Appellate Review Standard F. Procedures for Determining Doctrine of Equivalents Chapter III?U.S. Claim Interpretation: Substantive Law A. Source of Law 1. Statutes 2. Case Law B. Structure of US Claims C. Fundamental Rules 1. Claim Defines the Scope of Patent 2. All Elements Rule 3. Specifications 4. Prosecution History 5. PHOSITA—Philips D. Defining Literal Claim Scope 1. Canons 2. Special Types of Claims E. Expanding the Literal Claim Scope: Doctrine of Equivalents 1. Underlying Policy 2. Elements to Establish the Doctrine of Equivalents 3. Limitation to the Doctrine of Equivalents Chapter IV?Chinese Claim Interpretation: Substantive Law A. Sources of Law 1. Statute 080 2. The “Judge-Made Statute”: Judicial Interpretation 3. Case Law B. Fundamental Rules 1. Central Role of Claims 2. The “All Feature” Rule 3. Description and Drawings 4. Prosecution History: The Estoppel Principle 5. PHOSITA—2009 and 2016 Judicial Interpretation C. Structure of a Chinese Patent D. Defining the Literal Claim Scope 1. Canons of Claim Interpretation 2. Special Types of Claims E. The Doctrine of Equivalents 1. Elements to Establish the Doctrine of Equivalents 2. Limitation of Doctrine Equivalents: Dedication Principle 3. Limitation to the Doctrine of Equivalents: Estoppel Principle Chapter V?Comparative Analysis A. Policy 1. United States 2. China B. Rules 1. Procedure 2. Substantive Law Conclusion Table of Cases and Other Authorities Bibliography
鄂公網(wǎng)安備 42010302001612號(hào) 