Research On The Judicial Judgment Of Fully Disclosure Of The Specification

In the patent system,adequate disclosure of patent content is an important part.Among them,the requirement for full disclosure of patent content mainly lies in whether the specification complies with the provisions of Article 26,paragraph 3 of the Patent Law.However,at present,some basic concepts and judgment basis in Article 26,paragraph 3 of the Patent Law are not perfect,leading to inconsistent judgment standards and large discrepancies in judgment results.If it is not possible to clearly and clearly determine whether the specification of a patent complies with Article 26(3)of the Patent Law,the process of patent confirmation will become very difficult,and the litigation cycle will often be very lengthy.In the US Microchip v.Haier’s patent invalidation case,all parties engaged in controversy over the relevant issues involved in Article 26,paragraph 3 of the Patent Law.Therefore,the judgment of the full disclosure of the research specification will help speed up the efficiency of patent examination and patent confirmation,improve the stability and gold content of patents,and shorten the litigation cycle of patent dispute cases,making it difficult and periodic for patentees to defend their rights.The situation of long-term,high cost and low compensation has been improved.This article takes the US Chipset v.Haier’s patent invalidation case as an example to analyze the focus of the dispute,and at the same time analyzes the retrial judgment of the "Little I Robot" case and the Stableli Company v.Changshu Machinery Patent Dispute.It is hoped that it can provide practical experience and theoretical reference for the problems of unspecified judgment steps,unclear evaluation objects,inaccurate legal provisions and unclear judgment subjects in the judgments that are fully disclosed in the manual.This paper is divided into four parts:By reviewing the facts of the case and analyzing the trial situation of the first and second instance courts,summarize the focus of disputes in the case,sort out different views and existing problems.The second part is a legal analysis of the focus of the dispute in this case.First,in the overview of the full disclosure of the specification,the meaning,legal basis and specific provisions of the full disclosure of the specification are sorted out.Secondly,in the judgment subject that the specification is fully disclosed,the concept of "skilled person in the technical field" and the regulations on "skilled person in the technical field" have been sorted out at home and abroad,and on this basis,the "technical field in the field" has been sorted out.The technical staff" understood.Once again,discussed the understanding of the review object for whether the specification is fully disclosed,sorted out the relevant legal regulations,and combined with the"small I robot" case to demonstrate whether it is necessary to disclose the specific structure of the"work mode control circuit" in this case.Finally,the domestic and foreign research is sorted out in the standard for full disclosure of the specification,and the standard for full disclosure of the specification is analyzed in conjunction with the case of Stablely Company v.Changshu Machinery Patent Dispute.The third part is the legal thinking triggered by this case.First,it analyzes the problems in the judgment steps that are fully disclosed in the specification.Secondly,it analyzes the problem of the subject of sufficient disclosure of the specification.Thirdly,the problems existing in the provisions of the "Patent Examination Guidelines" are analyzed.Finally,it analyzes the problems of the judgment subject that is fully disclosed in the specification.In addition,it also analyzes the problems existing in the drafting of the patent document specification.The fourth part puts forward its own suggestions for the problems raised in the third part.