How to summarize all the patent law issues involved in the case

1, the starting point of the time limit for prosecution of administrative cases with patent authorization confirmation is the date of receiving the sued decision. If the case file evidence can prove that the administrative counterpart actually received the defendant's decision, the actual date of receipt shall prevail; If the filing evidence is difficult to prove that the administrative counterpart actually received the sued decision, or China National Intellectual Property Administration has other provisions or agreements on the time when the administrative counterpart actually received the sued decision, and the provisions or agreements are beneficial to the administrative counterpart and do not violate the prohibitive provisions of laws and administrative regulations, in order to protect the trust interests of the administrative counterpart, the "date of receiving the relevant decision" can be interpreted in favor of the administrative counterpart according to the specific circumstances.

2. For the technical features clearly defined in the claims and specifications, we can't make an abstract explanation without clearly defining the meaning, thus inappropriately expanding the scope of patent protection.

3. For the technical features clearly defined in the patent claim and specification, it is not possible to make an abstract explanation without clearly defining the meaning, thus inappropriately expanding the protection scope of the patent right.

4. The use environment features refer to the technical features used in the claims to describe the use background or conditions of the invention-creation, which are not limited to the technical features related to the installation position or connection structure of the protected object, but also include the technical features related to the use, applicable object and use mode of the protected object under specific circumstances.

5. The use environment features refer to the technical features used in the claims to describe the use background or conditions of the invention-creation, which are not limited to the technical features related to the installation position or connection structure of the protected object, but also include the technical features related to the use, applicable object and use mode of the protected object under specific circumstances.

6. In the patent for utility model, the shape structural features and non-shape structural features contained in the specification and attached drawings, which are essential for realizing the functions and effects defined by the functional features, have substantial restrictions on the functional features, and the contents that constitute the functional features should be considered when judging the infringement.

7. If the patentee did not write the technical scheme he clearly knew into the claim when writing the patent application documents, and the technical personnel in this field think that the patentee clearly does not seek to protect the technical scheme that has not been written into the claim after reading the patent claim and specification, then the technical scheme should generally not be included in the scope of patent protection through equivalent infringement.

8. The proof standard of "original scope" in prior right defense should not be too high. The accused infringer has tried his best to prove that the original scope of his claim is reasonable, but the patentee fails to provide sufficient evidence to refute it. Generally speaking, it can be considered that the accused infringer implemented it within the original scope.

9. The commitment of civil liability for infringement of sales behavior is not based on the actual occurrence of sales. Once the promised sales behavior occurs, it may cause damage such as affecting the reasonable pricing of patented products, reducing or delaying the business opportunities of the patentee. Therefore, the implementer of the promised sales behavior should not only bear the civil liability for stopping the infringement and paying the reasonable expenses for rights protection, but also bear the liability for damages. If the infringer only committed the act of promising to sell, and it is difficult for the patentee to prove the specific losses he suffered, he can calculate the amount of damages through legal compensation according to the specific case, focusing on the infringement circumstances reflected in the evidence filed.

10. In a dispute case involving information network infringement of patent rights, if part of the substantive link or part of the infringement result of the alleged infringement occurred in China, it can be determined that the infringement occurred in China. The location of the server of the accused infringing website is not the only factor to judge the place where the infringement is committed. The accused infringer only argues that the server is located outside China, and its behavior does not infringe the patent right of our country, which is generally not supported.