Page 12 - 2020 Policy Watch-Comparison of Secret Sale Patent
P. 12
icy Watch: Comparison between the US and China as to Whether a Secret Sale before the Date of Filing Affacts the Patent Application
200,000 yuan on 7th November 2001. The claimant PREB认为产å?????¶å?å¼???¸¸å¸¸é?è¦???????
and the Bureau jointly prepared the examination ma- ä½??ä¸?ºº???å®????º§??????è¿????¸¸???è®?
terials of scientific and technological achievements in 计ã????¶ã???è¯????å®??å¤?¸ª?????
December 2002. The patent application was filed on
30th December 2002. ?¨æ?æ¡?¸ï¼???¶è?æ±?ººä¸??????¡å??¨ç?请人ç?
The PREB held that the research and development of 订é???????ä½???´è??¸å??ºæ??ºå??????å®??
products often requires cooperation among different ä¹????????å±?????è¿?????ä½?????¸¸???
units or individuals. This process usually includes de- ä¸???¨äº§????????????ç¨?¸ï¼??ä¸???????
sign, trial, testing, identification, etc. ?¹å??¸å???????容é?è´???¸å????å¯?´£ä»»ï?äº?
In this case, although the claimant and the Bureau en- ???ä¹°æ?äº????????ä¼??ä¸????è´¹è????¸å???
tered into a sales contract before the filing date, the ???容å?äº??ä¼??说ä?å¤????»¥?·ç??????è¦??
parties?? relationship shall be considered as cooperation ?¥å?????¥ç??¶æ????
in research and development until a technical examina-
tion certificate was issued by the relevant organizations. ?¨é????????å®??????????为å????产å???
Generally, all parties involved in research and develop- ?¶ã??????ç¨?¸ä¸ºä?对产????§è????è¾¾å?çº??
ment assume their own responsibilities for keeping ???计è?æ±????è¡??æµ??????¶è?ç¨?????????
the relevant technical content in confidence. Since the ?´å????????³è?人å??ºå?????°½ç®¡æ????å®??
seller and the purchaser were not subject to the general ?¨ç?请æ??????ï¼?????è¿°é????为ä??½è?å®??
public or considered as common consumers, the tech- ?©å?å¼??????½¿?¨ã???æ¤ï?ä¸????????????
nology was not available to the public or easily obtain-
able to the public.
Prior to the approval of the technical examination,
the sale was merely a trial testing on whether the per-
formance of the product fulfilled the agreed design
requirements. The examination materials of scientific
and technological achievements were issued after the
application date. Despite the technical approval and
payment by the Bureau prior to the filing date, the sale
could not be defined as a disclosure in the first use.
Thus, it was not a prior art.
12
200,000 yuan on 7th November 2001. The claimant PREB认为产å?????¶å?å¼???¸¸å¸¸é?è¦???????
and the Bureau jointly prepared the examination ma- ä½??ä¸?ºº???å®????º§??????è¿????¸¸???è®?
terials of scientific and technological achievements in 计ã????¶ã???è¯????å®??å¤?¸ª?????
December 2002. The patent application was filed on
30th December 2002. ?¨æ?æ¡?¸ï¼???¶è?æ±?ººä¸??????¡å??¨ç?请人ç?
The PREB held that the research and development of 订é???????ä½???´è??¸å??ºæ??ºå??????å®??
products often requires cooperation among different ä¹????????å±?????è¿?????ä½?????¸¸???
units or individuals. This process usually includes de- ä¸???¨äº§????????????ç¨?¸ï¼??ä¸???????
sign, trial, testing, identification, etc. ?¹å??¸å???????容é?è´???¸å????å¯?´£ä»»ï?äº?
In this case, although the claimant and the Bureau en- ???ä¹°æ?äº????????ä¼??ä¸????è´¹è????¸å???
tered into a sales contract before the filing date, the ???容å?äº??ä¼??说ä?å¤????»¥?·ç??????è¦??
parties?? relationship shall be considered as cooperation ?¥å?????¥ç??¶æ????
in research and development until a technical examina-
tion certificate was issued by the relevant organizations. ?¨é????????å®??????????为å????产å???
Generally, all parties involved in research and develop- ?¶ã??????ç¨?¸ä¸ºä?对产????§è????è¾¾å?çº??
ment assume their own responsibilities for keeping ???计è?æ±????è¡??æµ??????¶è?ç¨?????????
the relevant technical content in confidence. Since the ?´å????????³è?人å??ºå?????°½ç®¡æ????å®??
seller and the purchaser were not subject to the general ?¨ç?请æ??????ï¼?????è¿°é????为ä??½è?å®??
public or considered as common consumers, the tech- ?©å?å¼??????½¿?¨ã???æ¤ï?ä¸????????????
nology was not available to the public or easily obtain-
able to the public.
Prior to the approval of the technical examination,
the sale was merely a trial testing on whether the per-
formance of the product fulfilled the agreed design
requirements. The examination materials of scientific
and technological achievements were issued after the
application date. Despite the technical approval and
payment by the Bureau prior to the filing date, the sale
could not be defined as a disclosure in the first use.
Thus, it was not a prior art.
12
