Source: http://etheses.lib.ntust.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G00M9924011%22.&searchmode=basic
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:25:20+00:00

Document:
In order to distinguish his/her claims from those of a prior reference, the applicant of a patent application or the patentee of an issued patent may need to amend his/her claims during prosecution and/or after issuance of the patent, and thereby results in the alteration of the original claimed scope. Since the applicant of a patent application or the patentee is obligated to point out his/her invention, so that the general public may reframe from infringing the patent; therefore a guidance on how the claimed scope should be interpreted during litigation or how much right is entitled to the patentee in view of the altered claim scope resulted from the amended claims may be useful in the practice and hence is the focus of the present study.
Article 40 of the Taiwan Patent Act set forth a monetary compensation mechanism by allowing the patentee to make damage claim retroactively to any claims that were infringed during the period the claims were laid-open up to the time the claims were issued Further, patentee may still amend claims even after issuance in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article 64 of the Patent Act, which may also result in an alteration in the claimed scope. Therefore, this study emphasizes on the effects of claim amendment made under Articles 40 and/or 64 of Taiwan Patent Act, by conducting a comparative study on relevant legislation and practice adopted by the patent offices in the United States and Japan; and herby proposed some possible resolution measures that might be useful in improving the practice in Taiwan.
1. Charles R. Macedo, Effect of the publication of applications under the American inventors protection act of 1999, Federal Circuit Bar Journal (2003-2004).
2. Jonathan A. Platt, Protecting Reliance on The Patent System: The Economics and Equities of Intervening Rights, Case Western Reserve Law Review (Spring, 1997).
3. Chapter 3. Substantive Issues of a Patent Infringement Case By Junichi Kitahara and Hirokazu Honda，Japanese Patent Litigation § 3:53，Japanese Patent Litigation Database (updated March, 2010).
1. Lans v. Digital Equip. Corp., 252 F.3d 1320 (June 04, 2001).
2. Arendi Holding Ltd. v. Microsoft Coporation, et al., Civ. No. 09-119-JJF-LPS (April 12, 2010).
3. Stephens v. Tech Int'l, Inc., 393 F.3d 1269 (December 29, 2004).
5. BIC Leisure Prods. v. Windsurfing Int'l, 1 F.3d 1214 (August 04, 1993).
7. Slimfold Manufacturing Company, Inc., v. Kinkead Industries, Inc. and United States Gypsum Company, 810 F2.d 1113, 55 USLW 2423, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1563 (January21, 1987).
8. In re Willingham, 282 F.2d 353, 127 USPQ 211, 214 (July 20, 1960).
9. In re Altenpohl, 500 F.2d 1151, 183 USPQ 38 (August 15, 1974).
10. Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342 (December 18, 1998).
11. Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilla, LLC 2008, Civil No. CCB-06-3041 (Sep. 30, 2008).
12. Bloom Eng’g Co., Inc v. North American Mfg. Co., Inc., 129 F.3d 1247 ( November 21, 1997).
13. Russell v. Dodge, 93 U.S. 460, 463 (1876).
14. Marine polymer technologies, Inc., v. Hemcon, Inc, 672 F.3d 1350, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161 (March 15, 2012).
1. U.S. 4,099,617, Shipping Bundle for Numerous Pipe Lengths.
2. Re. 30,373, Shipping Bundle for Numerous Pipe Lengths.
3. U.S. 3,810,274, Pivot and Guide Rod Assembly for Bi-Fold Door.
4. U.S. 3,952,311, Electro-optical printing system.
5. U.S. 7,007,507, Necklaces and bracelets with keepers.
6. US 6,864,245, Biocompatible poly-β-1→4-N-acetylglucosamine.

References: § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.