گسترۀ جواز اصلاح ادعا در اظهارنامۀ ثبت اختراع؛ مطالعۀ تطبیقی در حقوق ایالات متحدۀ امریکا، بریتانیا و اسناد بین‌المللی

الف) منابع فارسی

- کتاب‌ها

1. شیخی، مریم (1392). راهبردهای قانونگذاری در حقوق مالکیت صنعتی، تهران: انتشارات خرسندی.
2. صالحی ذهابی، جمال (1388). حق اختراع، نگرشی تطبیقی، تهران: شرکت سهامی‌انتشار.
3. میرحسینی، سید حسن (1387). حقوق اختراعات، تهران: نشر میزان.

- مقالات

4. پروین، محمدرضا (1389). نقش ادعاهای اختراع در تعیین عرصۀ فنی حمایت‌شده توسط حق اختراع، کنکاشی در زیست فناوری. حقوق پزشکی. 12(4). 71-104.
5. حبیبا، سعید و مهردار قائم‌مقامی، گلریز (1400). جایگاه ادعاهای مندرج در اظهارنامه‌های ثبت اختراع در محدودۀ حمایتی از اختراعات. تحقیقات حقوقی. 24 (96 ). 38-62.

Doi: 10.29252/jlr.2022.225451.2082

6. شاکری، زهرا و جهرمی‌ بهادری، زهرا (1397). سخنی در انواع نظام‌های ثبت اختراع با نگاهی به برخی اصول ثبتی. مجموعۀ مقالات همایش ملی تجلیل از مقام علمی ‌استاد محمدجعفر لنگرودی. 1(1).

ب) منابع انگلیسی

- Books

7. Lionel Bently, Brad Sherman, Dev Gangjee, and Phillip Johnson (2018). Intellectual Property Law, 5^th ed, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Martin J. Adelman et al., Randel R.Rader, John RThomas (2014). Cases and Materials on Patent Law, American Casebook Series, West Academic Publishing.

- Articles

9. Krasser R. (1992). Possibilities of Amendment of Patent Claims during the Examination Procedure. IIC. 23 ( 4). 467-471.

• Stephen T. Schreiner & Patrick A. Doody (2006). Patent Continuation Applications: How the PTO’s Proposed New Rules Undermine an Important Part of the U.S. Patent System with Hundreds of Years of History. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y. 88. (01). 556-569.
• Robert P. Merges (2007). Software and Patent Scope: A Report from the Middle Innings. L. Rev. 85. (01). 1627-1670.
• Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley (2003) Policy Levers in Patent Law. Berkeley Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper Series. 1-228. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4qr081sg
• Donald S. Chisum (1992). Patent Law Developments in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit During 1991. U. L. Rev. 41. (14) .869-903.
• Tun-Jen Chiang (2010). Fixing Patent Boundaries, 108 Michigan. REV. 108.(4).523-575.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Fmlr%2Fvol108%2Fiss4%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

• Stephen Y.(2014). Improving Patent Quality with Applicant Incentives. J.L. & TECH. 28. (18). 77-136.
• Greg R. (2018). Amending Patent Claims. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. 32.(1).1-56.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3362043_code1871473.pdf?abstractid=3249589&mirid=1

• Timothy B. Lee (2018). Why the Roots of Patent Trolling May Be in the Patent Of-Fice, Trolls Love Patents from Examiners who are Lenient” About Patent Vetting. US Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia, Mar 5, 2018 12:15 pm.

• “National Patent Drafting Course”, (2017). Chiang Mai, Thailand October 2 to 6, 2017. Organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Cooperation with Chiang Mai University Department of Intellectual Property, Ministry of Commerce of Thailand and the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) in Thailand and with the Assistance of the Japan Patent Office (JPO). Chiang Mai, October 2 to 6, 2017. https://arstechnica.com/techpolicy/2018/03/why-the-roots-of-patent-trolling-may-be-in-the-patent-office/#p3[https://perma.cc/W4QB-DXH3]

- Act & International Documents:

• American invention act, (AIA), 2011.
• Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), Done at Washington on June 19, 1970, Amended on September 28, 1979, Modified on February 3, 1984, and October 3, 2001,(as in Force from April 1, 2002).
• Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) (EPC), Signed in Munich on November 29, 2000. On June 28, 2001, the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation Adopted the Final New Text of the EPC 2000. The EPC 2000 Entered into Force on December 13, 2007

- Cases

• Abbott Laboratories Limited v. Medinol Limited (2010)
• AC Edwards v. Acme Signs & Displays Ltd. (1992)
• Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell Industries (2002)
• AP Racing v. Alcon Components Ltd (2014)
• Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
• Biogen v. Medeva (1997)
• Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 146 (1989)
• Bonzel (T.) and Anr v. Intervention Limited and Anr (No. 3) (1991)
• Brigade (BBS-TEK) v. Amber Valley (2013)
• Bristol Myers Company v. Manon Freres (1973)
• Codex Corporation v. Racal Milgo (1983)
• Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 511 F.3d 1157, 1185 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
• Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann Co. 304 U.S. 159 (1938)
• European Central Bank v. Document Security Systems Incorporated (2007)
• G 2/10 Disclaimer (2012)
• G 2/88 (1990)
• G 3/89 Disclaimer (1993)
• G 11/91 Glu-Gln (1993)
• G 1/93 (1994)
• Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (1998)
• Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 218, 243 (1832)
• Hallen v. Brabantia (1990)
• Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) (Whyte’s) Patent (1978)
• In re Hounsfield, 699 F.2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
• In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1519 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
• Kimberly-Clark Worldwide v. Procter & Gamble Ltd & Anor (2000)
• Kintner v. Atlantic Communication Co., 240 F. 716, 717 (2d Cir. 1917)
• Lars eric norling and anr. V. EEZ-AWAY (UK) LTD. & ORS (1997)
• Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 909 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
• Mack v. United States, 814 F.2d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 1987)
• Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
• Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568 (1877)
• Milliken Denmark AS v. Walk Off Mats (1996)
• Mölnlycke AB and Anothers v. Procter & Gamble Limited and Anothers (No. 5) (1994)
• Nokia Corporation v. IPCom GMBH & Co KG (No.3) (2013)
• Permutit Co. v. Graver Corporation, 284 U.S. 52, 60 (1931)
• Rambus Inc. v. FTC, 522 F.3d 456, 460–61 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
• Raleigh Cycle Company Ltd and Another v. H. Miller and Company Ltd (1948)
• Richardson-Vicks Patent v. Upjohn Company (1995)
• Sara Lee Household & Body Care Ltd. v. Johnson Wax Ltd. (2001)
• Siegfried Demel v. Jefferson (1999)
• Shockley v. Arcan, Inc., 248 F.3d 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
• Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus, 810 F.2d 1113, 1116–17 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
• Smith Kline French (SKF) v. Evans Medical (1989)
• Snitzer v. Etzel, 465 F.2d 899, 902 (C.C.P.A. 1972)
• Southco Inc. and Another v. Dzus Fastener Europe Ltd. (1990)
• Spring Foam v. Playhut (2000)
• Strix Ltd. v. Otter Controls Ltd. (1995)
• Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) (2013)
• Symbol Technologies v. Lemelson Medical, Educ. & Research Foundations, 422 F.3d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
• T 66/85 (1989)
• T 82/93 (1996)
• T 133/85 (1988)
• T 170/87 (1989)
• T 187/91 (1995)
• T 194/84 (1990)
• T 201/83 (1984)
• T 246/86 (1989)
• T 378/86 (1988)
• T 514/88 (1990)
• T 582/91 (1995)
• T 583/93 (1997)
• T 684/96 (2000)
• Unilever PLC v. Chefaro Proprietaries Ltd. (1994)
• Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
• Vector Corporation v. Glatt Air Techniques Ltd. (2007)