彭哲，现任山东大学法学院副研究员。2012获得美国华盛顿大学法学院法学博士学位。2012年在日本明治大学在中山信宏教授的科研团队中担任共同研究员职位，与来自各国的知识产权法学者进行合作研究。2013年就职于山东大学法学院，任副研究员。兼任山东省版权教学科研基地副主任、威海仲裁委员会仲裁员。先后发表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）等论文。美国联邦巡回上诉法院于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。作为项目主持人承担《行政监管对知识产权法律制度的影响》课题（司法部项目），《山东省药品创新的知识产权法律保障机制研究》（山东省社科项目），《大班教学：美国法学院的经验考察与借鉴》（山东大学教学促进与教师发展基金项目）。主讲《知识产权法（全英文）》、《中国知识产权法（全英文，留学生课程）》等课程。

本书着重对中美两国的专利权利要求解释相关法律进行比较研究，探讨两国法律的异同。专利的权利要求界定了专利权的范围，也是在专利侵权纠纷中争议的核心。解释权利要求以确定专利的范围是专利侵权判定中最关键的一步。本书对于两国法律进行了功能性的比较。虽然美国专利法和中国专利法的概念框架大相径庭，权利解释规则的表述和术语差异较大，但是有些规则的内容实质上是一致的。中美两国也有一些在表述上非常相似的规则，但是这些规则在司法适用却有所不同，从而会给出不同的专利保护范围。在比较研究的基础上，以平衡激励创新和维护公共利益为原则，提出了对专利权利要求立法和司法的建议。

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