Press Enter to Center block
:::

Intellectual Property and Commercial Court

:::

2013 Min Zhuan Shang Zi No. 32

font-size:
Decision No. 2013 Min Zhuan Shang Zi No. 32
Date November 6, 2014
Decision Highlight

The convex and skewed slot of disputed patent’s claim 1, based on its ordinary meaning, cover structures which the convex can lift relatively along the skewed slot by the concave – the convex corresponding structures, which include spiral structures.

However, the appellee, for defending the patent’s validity, confirmed repeatedly that the skewed slot and the convex of the disputed patent should be distinguished from spiral structures, which allows the two rods to quickly switch between lock mode and unlock mode in the appellee’s responses submitted during the procedure of patent cancellation application. The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, the Petitions and Appeals Committee, and Intellectual Property Court administration decision No. 2013-Xing-Zhuan-Su-20 all held that the skewed slot and the convex of the disputed patent should be distinguished from spiral structures. It shows that the appellee’s responses submitted during the procedure of patent cancellation application should be acceptable and be considered as an intrinsic evidence for the purpose of claim construction.

After considering the intrinsic evidence, the claim scope of the skewed slot and the convex of disputed patent should be narrowed and exclude spiral structures.

Keywords

Interpret claim(s), Intrinsic evidence.

Relevant statutes Article 106 Paragraph 2 of the Patent Act (amended and promulgated on August 25, 2010 )
  • Release Date:2020-11-13
  • Update:2020-12-07
Top