2016年10月-2017年9月最高法院知識產權判決書

袁丹吉

上诉人 被上诉人 类型 判决书下载 判决日
Samsung Electronics Apple 專利: 當外觀設計專利的一部份被判侵權時,該賠償是否只針對那一部份呢? SC15-777 2016/12/06
Life Technologies Corporation Promega Corporation 專利: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that supplying a single, commodity component of a multi-component invention from the United States is an infringing act under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), exposing the manufacturer to liability for all worldwide sales. SC14-1538 2017/02/22
SCA Hygiene Products First Quality Baby Products 專利: 專利法286條裡說明,侵權中能得到的賠償必須是侵權起訴前六年內的。但在這六年內,是否還是可以提出"未提起訴"作為不侵權的抗辯理由? SC15-927 2017/03/21
Star Athletica Varsity Brands 版權: 依據版權法101條款中,到底針對一件有用的物品中的特徵是否可得到版權保護的測驗是什麼? SC15-866 2017/03/22
TC Heartland LLC Kraft Food Brands Group LLC 專利: 對於專利侵權訴訟法院的管轄權應該是完全由 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) 條款來解釋,還是可由一般訴訟管轄權28 U.S.C. § 1391的條款來解釋被告的"所在地(reside)" 的位置? SC16-341 2017/05/22
Impression Products Lexmark 專利: (1) Whether a “conditional sale” that transfers title to the patented item while specifying post-sale restrictions on the article's use or resale avoids application of the patent-exhaustion doctrine and therefore permits the enforcement of such post-sale restrictions through the patent law’s infringement remedy; and (2) whether, in light of this court’s holding in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. that the common-law doctrine barring restraints on alienation that is the basis of exhaustion doctrine “makes no geographical distinctions,” a sale of a patented article – authorized by the U.S. patentee – that takes place outside the United States exhausts the U.S. patent rights in that article SC15-1189 2017/05/30
Sandoz Amgen 專利: Whether it is mandatory for biosimilar product application under BPCIA to provide notice to the sponosor (patentee) of commercial marketing of the biosimilar product before obtaining a license. SC15-1039 2017/06/12
Matal Tam 商標: Whether the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it “[c]onsists of . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute” is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. SC15-1293 2017/06/19