| Project/Area Number |
25780083
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B)
|
| Allocation Type | Multi-year Fund |
|---|
| Research Field |
New fields of law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Nagoya University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
NISHII Shiori 名古屋大学, 法学研究科, 准教授 (80637520)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2013-04-01 – 2019-03-31
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2018)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,340,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,800,000、Indirect Cost: ¥540,000)
Fiscal Year 2015: ¥650,000 (Direct Cost: ¥500,000、Indirect Cost: ¥150,000)
Fiscal Year 2014: ¥650,000 (Direct Cost: ¥500,000、Indirect Cost: ¥150,000)
Fiscal Year 2013: ¥1,040,000 (Direct Cost: ¥800,000、Indirect Cost: ¥240,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | 特許法 / 出願経過 / クレーム解釈 / 禁反言 / 均等論 / 特許権 / 保護範囲 |
|---|
| Outline of Final Research Achievements |
This research was based on the question whether it is appropriate to consider the prosecution history (i.e. the patent office file) along with the claims, the description and drawings in the determination of the scope of protection in the patent infringement suits. This research showed that some European countries (Germany and the U.K.) have not taken positive attitudes in principle to the consideration of the prosecution history, and clarified the reasons of differences between those countries and Japan. This interest is associated with the bigger interest that relates to the ground design of the Patent Law: from which materials and how should the person skilled in the art be able to predict the scope of the protection in light of the structure and the purpose of the Patent Law? The results were reported in oral presentations at symposia and seminars and published as several articles.
|
| Academic Significance and Societal Importance of the Research Achievements |
これまで研究が不足していた欧州諸国も含めた比較法研究を通じて、出願経過の考慮が所与であるかのように受け入れられ意識的検討がなされてこなかった我が国の理論・実務を相対化した。出願経過の考慮態様を①クレーム解釈資料性と②禁反言の基礎とに区別して論じるべきと提唱した上で、①に関しクレーム解釈資料論一般に視野を広げ、同資料を原則的に、クレーム・明細書・図面、及び（解釈の基準主体たる）当業者の一般的専門知識に限るという立場が前向きに検討されるべきと示した。②に関しては、侵害訴訟で実現されるべき具体的妥当性と考えられているものも各国共通ではない中で、日本の出願経過禁反言の適用要件・効果の妥当性を検討した。
|
