Source: http://etheses.lib.ntust.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G0M10524901%22.&searchmode=basic
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:53:43+00:00

Document:
It has long been a controversial issue that whether product-by-process claims cover any product that is the same as the product produced by the recited process steps (product identity theory) or only those products that were produced by the recited process steps (process limitation theory) in determination of patent infringement.
The Purposes of this study were to compare advantages and disavatages of two interpretations from the patent cases in the US, Japan and Taiwan. The methodologies of the study include comparative method and literature analysis. Comparative method: Court’s decisions and guidelines for determining patentability and clarity of product-by-process claims in US, Japan, and Taiwan are compared. Literature analysis: the domestic and foreign Jounal papers related to this topic are investigated.
The results of this study: for those products manufactured by a new process, using process claims to protect the inventions is more recommended. In order to preotect new products, product-by-process claims are used only in case it is necessary. Also, product identity theory for infringement assessment is more likely reasonable in Taiwan if the rule of necessity applied.
Kazuhiro Yamaguchi (2017), “Product-by-Process Claims: Changes in the Japanese Practice further to the Supreme Court Decisions on the Pravastatin Sodium Case, and a Comparison with Other Jurisdictions” AIPPI Journal, Vol. 42 No. 2, p63-p87.
Kageyama, K. (2014), Necessity, Criteria (Requirements or Limits) and Acknowledgement of Product Identity of Claims for Product Described by Its Manufacturing Process (Product-by-Process Claims), Beijing Law Review, 5, p114-p129.
Irah H. Donner,Patent Prosecution: Law, Practice, and Procedure, (eighth Edition,2013).
Palombi Luigi,Gene Cartels: Biotech Patents in the Age of Free Trade (2009).
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/patents/867/wipo_pub_867.pdf (last visited June 16, 2018).
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1372&context=iplj(last visited June 16, 2018).
USPTO MPEP 2173.05(p): https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2173.html(last visted June 16, 2018).
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2113.html (last visited June 16, 2018).
https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-announces-notice-proposed-rule making-claim-construction-standard-used(last visited June 16, 2018 ).
フラハスタチン訴訟の終了について: www.kyowa-kirin.co.jp/news_releases/2015(last visted June 16, 2018).
Ex parteLyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 581 F.Supp.2d 160, 173, 186, 192 (D.Mass.2008).
In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp., 970 F.2d 834, 1992.
The Medicines Company v. Mylan, Inc. 853 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1969).
In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, 2017-1445 (Feb. 8, 2018). Wood-Paper Patent 90 U.S. 566(1874).
Smith v. Goodyear DentalVulcanite Co., 93 U.S. 486, 492-493 (1877). Ex parte Painter, 1891 C.D. 200, 57 O.G. 999 (Dec. Comm’r Pat. 1891). In re Hughes, 496 F.2d 1216 (C.C.P.A. 1974).
Amazon.com, Inc. v. barnesandnoble.com, Inc. And barnesandnoble.com, LLC, 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs. Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979).
In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Cochrane v. Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik, 111 U.S. 293 ( 1884).
Lupin Ltd. v. Abbott Laboratories, 484 F.Supp.2d 448.
Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 486 F.Supp.2d 767.
Abott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
The Medicines Company v. Mylan, Inc. 853 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.