معیارهای ثانویه احراز گام ابتکاری اختراعات؛ مطالعه در پرتو رویۀ قضایی ایالات متحده آمریکا

• صالحی ذهابی، جمال، حق اختراع: نگرشی تطبیقی، چاپ اول، (تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار، 1388).
• میرحسینی، سید حسن، حقوق اختراعات، چاپ اول، (تهران: نشر میزان، 1387).
• نجفی، حامد، گام ابتکاری در حقوق اختراع، چاپ اول، (تهران: انتشارات مجد، 1396).

• جعفرزاده، میرقاسم؛ محمودی، اصغر، «شرایط ماهوی حمایت از اختراع از نگاه رویه قضایی و اداره ثبت اختراعات»، مجلۀ تحقیقات حقوقی، دورۀ 8، شمارۀ 42، (1384)، صفحات 69-148.
• جعفرزاده، میرقاسم ؛ محمودی، اصغر، «نظام بین‌المللی ثبت اختراع: زمینه‌ها و ضرورت‌ها»، مجلۀ تحقیقات حقوقی، دورۀ 9، شمارۀ 44، (1385)، صفحات 55-107.

Translated References into English:

1. Jafarzadeh, Mirghasem and Mahmoudi, Asghar, “Substantive Conditions for Patent Protection from the Perspective of Judicial Procedure and the Patent Office”, Journal of Legal Research, Volume 8, Number 42, (2005), pp. 69-148. (In Persian)
2. Jafarzadeh, Mirghasem and Mahmoudi, Asghar, “International Patent System: Backgrounds and Necessities”, Journal of Legal Research, Volume 9, Number 44, (2006), pp. 55-107. (In Persian)
3. Mirhosseini, Seyed Hassan, Patent Law, first edition, (Tehran: Mizan Publication, 2008). (In Persian)
4. Najafi, Hamed, Inventive Step in Patent Law, First Edition, (Tehran: Majd Publication, 2017). (In Persian)
5. Salehi Zahabi, Jamal, Patent Law: A Comparative Approach, First Edition, (Tehran: Enteshar Company, 2009). (In Persian)

English:

Books:

6. Boyle, James and Jenkins, Jennifer, Intellectual Property: Law & The Information Society Case & Material, First Edition, (North Carolina: Duke Law School, 2014).
7. Fox, David L., S Patent Opinions and Evaluations, First Edition, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).

Articles:

8. AIPLA’s Model Patent Jury Instructions. Available at: https://www.aipla.org/home/news-publications/model-patent-jury-instructions
9. Fenton, Kathleen Marie, “Combination Patents and Synergism: Must 2 + 2 = 5?”, Washington and Lee Law Review, Volume 37, Issue 4, (1980), pp. 1206-1220.
10. Petherbridge, Lee and Wagner, R. Polk, “The Federal Circuit and Patentability: An Empirical Assessment of the Law of Obviousness”, Texas Law Review, 85, (2007), pp. 1-61.
11. Sirilla, George M., “35 U.S.C. 103: From Hotchkiss to Hand to Rich, the Obvious Patent Law Hall-of-Famers”, UIC Review, Volume 32, Issue 3, (1999), pp. 437-580.
12. Wagner R. Polk, “A Teaching, Suggestion, or Motivation to Combine”: Bringing Structure and Clarity the Obviousness Analysis, Faculty Scholarship at Penn Carey Law, 155: 96, (2006), pp. 95-111.

Cases:

13. Advanced Display Sys. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914ba6badd7b04934790b56
14. Alco Standard Corp. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 597 F. Supp. 133 (W.D. Tenn. 1984). Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/597/133/1437231/
15. Dow Chemical Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 816 F.2d 617, 622 (Fed. Cir. 1987). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/615/471/1515266/
16. In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Available at: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/1396801.html
17. T. Eaton & Co. v. Atlantic Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Available at: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/1061999.html
18. Kelley v. Coe 99 F.2d 435 (D.C. Cir. 1938). Available at: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/kelley-v-coe-no-887516579
19. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/398/
20. McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Available at: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/1481531.html
21. Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1376–1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Available at: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/1050503.html
22. National Sweeper Co. v. Bissell Carpet Sweeper Co. 249 F. 196, 198 (2d Cir. 1918). Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/1957/29-327-2.html
23. New Process Fermentation Co. v. Maus, 20 F. 725, 733 (1884), rev'd, 122 U.S. 413 (1887). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/122/413/
24. Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Available at: https://casetext.com/case/pharmastem-therapeutics-inc-v-viacell
25. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1367–69 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Available at: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/1156261.html
26. Pieper v. S.S. White Dental Mfg. Co. 228 F. 30, 37 (7th Cir. 1915). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/398/
27. Reeves Instrument Corp. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc. 444 F.2d 263 (9th Cir. 1971). Available at: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/reeves-instrument-corp-v-893097082
28. Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 285 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1960). Available at: https://www.leagle.com/decision/1960786285f2d5011641
29. Rodman Chemical Co. v. Deeds Commercial Laboratories 261 F. 189 (7th Cir. 1919). Available at: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/rodman-chemical-co-v-887208875
30. Richardson v. Shepard 60 F. 273 (C.C.D. Mass. 1894). Available at: Fox, David L., U.S Patent Opinions and Evaluations, Oxford University Press, first edition, 2010
31. Richardson-Vicks, Inc., v. Upjohn Co. 122 F.3d 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914bc1badd7b0493479a775
32. Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U.S. 486 (1876). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/93/486/
33. SSP Agricultural Equipment, Inc., v. Orchard-Rite Ltd. 592 F.2d 1096 (9^th 1979). Available at: https://www.leagle.com/decision/19791688592f2d109611497
34. Stevenson v. Grentec, Inc. 652 F.2d 20 (9th Cir. 1981). Available at: https://casetext.com/case/stevenson-v-grentec-inc
35. Traitel Marble Co. v. U T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co. 18 F.2d 66, 67 (2d Cir. 1927). Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/18/66/1479984/
36. United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50–51 (1966). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/39/
37. Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment. Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Available at: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/vandenberg-v-dairy-equipment-893718336
38. Wach v. Coe, 77F.2d 113 (D.C. Cir. 1935). Available at: Sirilla, George M. 35 U.S.C. 103: From Hotchkiss to Hand to Rich, the Obvious Patent Law Hall-of-Famers, UIC Review, Volume 32, Issue 3, 1999
39. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Dayton Fan & Motor Co. 106 F. 724, 728 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1901), a/id, 118F. 562 (6th Cir. 1902). Available at: Sirilla, George M. 35 U.S.C. 103: From Hotchkiss to Hand to Rich, the Obvious Patent Law Hall-of-Famers, UIC Review, Volume 32, Issue 3, 1999