Comparison Of The Equivalent Models Of The Functional Claiming Between China And The United States And Its Reference To China

Article 4 of “Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases”(Hereinafter referred to as “09 Interpretation”)and Article 8 of “Interpretation(II)of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases”(Hereinafter referred to as “16 Interpretation”)establishes the principles of interpretation shall be followed in litigation procedures,and the rules for implementing equivalent doctrine.However,the “equivalent implementation method” has certain similarities but differences with the equivalent features specified in the “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning Applicable Laws to the Trial of Patent Controversies”(Hereinafter referred to as “Provisions”).Although only two "basic" are reduced,they constitute a severe restriction on patentees with functional claims.As a direct source of China's functional feature provisions,namely,Article 112(f)of the United States Patent Law,it was initially a response to the Halliburton case.Since the US Congress legally recognized the writing of functional features,The "equivalents" in this paragraph collided with the "equivalent doctrine" developed from American jurisprudence to a certain extent.In the long-term judicial practice,the United States has also been exploring the difference between the “equivalents” and “equivalent doctrines” in order to maintain stability of the patent law.Although the national conditions of the United States and China are different,there are differences in the protection policies for intellectual property rights.However,we can still determine the reasonable scope of functional feature equivalence through the discussion of the conflict between functional feature equivalence and the principle of equivalence in the history of US courts.The first chapter mainly describes the concept of functional features and its development in China.It explores the attitude of the National Intellectual Property Administrations,PRC on functional features from the changes in the patent approval process,and observe the impact on the functional features after adding the "indispensable technical features" from the changes in judicial interpretation,and understand the impact of the interpretation of the functional features on the practical operation after the implementation of "16 Interpretation" from the changes in judicial practice.The second chapter mainly describes the country of origin of functional features: the United States' s regulations and development of functional equivalent models.The first section mainly introduces the reasons for the provision of functional features in the United States Patent Law,and combines the United States with Discussions on the interpretation of functional features have taken place in history,exploring their attitudes about the protective scope of functional features.The second section introduces the historical evolution of the principle of equivalence in the United States,and combines specific cases to observe the attitude of the United States to the application of the principle of equivalence in functional characteristics.The third section explores the specific application methods in the United States when the functional equivalents conflicts with the equivalent doctrine by introducing cases in American judicial practice.Section IV draws the difference between the equivalents of functional features and the equivalents doctrine under American law through the American judicial practice in Section III.The third chapter mainly explores the rationality of the equivalence of functional features in China by comparing the differences between the equivalence models of functional features in China and the United States,and gives suggestions for modification.The specific application method of the equivalent judgment of characteristics and the comparison of the differences in the equivalent applications are compared,and the conclusion that the equivalent protection scope of functional characteristics is smaller under Chinese law is drawn.The second section is based on the understanding of the US equivalent model,and gives suggestions on the functional characteristics of our country about its judgment standard,and gives reasons.Based on the discussion of functional features in the judicial practice of the United States and the conflicts of the new regulations in China's judicial practice,this article draws on its reasonable parts,and proposes the adaptive modification of the functional feature equivalent model in China.