最高院公报案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例

一、阿尔法拉瓦尔股份有限公司与国家知识产权局、第三人SWEP国际公司发明专利权无效行政纠纷案

【裁判要旨】

一、专利无效宣告程序中，修改方式作为手段，应当着眼于实现对权利要求书的修改满足不得超出原说明书和权利要求书记载的范围以及不得扩大原专利的保护范围两大法律标准的立法目的，兼顾行政审查行为的效率与公平保护专利权人的贡献，而不宜对具体修改方式作出过于严格的限制，否则将使得对修改方式的限制纯粹成为对专利权人权利要求撰写不当的惩罚。

二、当权利要求的修改系将从属权利要求的全部或部分附加技术特征补入其所引用的独立权利要求时，判断修改后的独立权利要求是否扩大了原专利的保护范围，应以作为修改对象的原专利的独立权利要求的保护范围为基准。

[Judgment Abstract] 

First, the restrictions on the specific amendment methods for claims in the procedures for declaring the invalidation of a patent should focus on achieving the legislative purpose of meeting the two legal standards that the amendment to the claims does not exceed the scope recorded in the original specifications and claims and that the scope of protection of the original patent should not be expanded, while taking into account the efficiency of administrative examination actions and the contribution to fair protection of the patentee. It is inappropriate to set too strict restrictions on the specific amendment methods, otherwise the restrictions on the amendment methods will simply become a punishment upon the patentee for inappropriate drafting of the claims.

Second, when the amendment to the claims is supplementing the additional technical features, in whole or in part, of the subordinate claims to the independent claims cited, determining whether the amended independent claims have expanded the scope of protection of the original patent should be based on the protection scope of the independent claims of the original patent subject to modification.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2020年第11期（总第289期）第21-29页

Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 11, 2020

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.118613472

[CLI Code] CLI.C.118613472 (EN)

二、东方电气集团东方汽轮机有限公司与大庆高新技术产业开发区大丰建筑安装有限公司、大庆大丰能源技术服务有限公司买卖合同纠纷案

Dongfang Steam Turbine Co., Ltd. of Dongfang Electric Corporation v. Dafeng Construction and Installation Co., Ltd. of Daqing High-tech Industrial Development Zone, and Daqing Dafeng Energy Technology Services Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over a sales contract)

【裁判摘要】

买卖的货物交付后，买受人已经使用标的物且未在约定的质量保证期内提出质量异议，当出卖人要求买受人支付欠付贷款、退还质保金时，买受人以货物存在质量问题为由主张行使先履行抗辩权拒绝付款的，不予支持。

交付技术材料是卖方负有的从给付义务，卖方违反该义务，买方可以主张相应的违约责任。卖方违反从给付义务但并未影响买方对所买货物正常使用，不影响合同目的实现的，买方不能基于卖方违反从给付义务而拒绝履行给付货款的主给付义务。

[Judgment Abstract]

Where, after the delivery of a commodity, the buyer has used the subject matter and raised no objection to its quality within the agreed warranty period, if the buyer withholds payment by claiming to exercise the defense right of early performance on the ground that the purchased commodity has quality problems when being asked to pay off the unliquidated loans and return the warranty deposit, the people's court should not support such a claim.

Whereas the delivery of technical materials is the seller's accessory obligation, the buyer may claim the corresponding liability of the seller for breach of contract in the event that the seller is in breach of its obligations. Where the seller violates its accessory obligation, the buyer cannot refuse to perform its primary obligation of payment for such reasons, provided that the violation neither precludes the buyer from use of the commodity nor affects the realization of the purpose of the contract.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2020年第11期（总第289期）第33-40页

Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 11, 2020

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.90971041

[CLI Code] CLI.C. 90971041 (EN)