专利诉讼外文翻译----法律和事实在专利诉讼中是形式还是功能.doc
约7页DOC格式手机打开展开
专利诉讼外文翻译----法律和事实在专利诉讼中是形式还是功能,recently, the supreme court sent dennison mfg. v. panduit corp. back to the court of appeals for the federal circuit (cafc). it remanded with explicit direction...
内容介绍
此文档由会员 wanli1988go 发布
Recently, the Supreme Court sent Dennison Mfg. v. Panduit Corp. back to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). It remanded with explicit directions that the lower court consider the extent to which Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) governs appellate review of nonobviousness determinations.
介绍：
最近，最高法院驳回了丹尼森Mfg.诉泛达公司的案件至联邦巡回法院（CAFC）。它的驳回带有鲜明的特征，即在考虑了《美国联邦民法》第52页中所规定的审查基层法院上诉的非显而易见的程度后才发回重审。
On remand, the CAFC should attempt to relate the issue to the scope of review for other issues that arise in patent appeals. Neither the narrow nor the broad problem has ever received the attention it deserves — particularly from the standpoint of the fundamental law/fact dichotomy.
在发回重审时，联邦巡回法院应该尝试在专利上诉时联系它的复审范围。但是无论是狭义还是广义的问题都没有得到它应有的重视——特别是基本的法律/ 事实二分法上的观点。
介绍：
最近，最高法院驳回了丹尼森Mfg.诉泛达公司的案件至联邦巡回法院（CAFC）。它的驳回带有鲜明的特征，即在考虑了《美国联邦民法》第52页中所规定的审查基层法院上诉的非显而易见的程度后才发回重审。
On remand, the CAFC should attempt to relate the issue to the scope of review for other issues that arise in patent appeals. Neither the narrow nor the broad problem has ever received the attention it deserves — particularly from the standpoint of the fundamental law/fact dichotomy.
在发回重审时，联邦巡回法院应该尝试在专利上诉时联系它的复审范围。但是无论是狭义还是广义的问题都没有得到它应有的重视——特别是基本的法律/ 事实二分法上的观点。
