欧美判例翻译(10)

　　[8]810 F.Supp.2d 578, 581 (S.D.N.Y.2011).
　　[9]Ibid.
　　[10]35 U.S.C. ?112 ?2 (2006 ed.); see *836Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. ----, ----, n. 1, 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2125, n. 1, 189 L.Ed.2d 37 (2014).
　　[11]See 723 F.3d 1363, 1367 (C.A.Fed.2013); App. 124a.
　　[12]810 F.Supp.2d, at 596; see Nautilus, supra, at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2130 (“[T]he definiteness inquiry trains on the understanding of a skilled artisan at the time of the patent application”这一调查结果是基于专利申请时的相关领域技术人员的理解能力得出的).
　　[13]810 F.Supp.2d, at 596.
　　[14]723 F.3d, at 1369.
　　[15]Id., at 1369, 1373; see also Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North Am. Corp., 744 F.3d1272, 1276-1277 (C.A.Fed.2014) (en banc) (重申对地区法院专利权利要求解释的重新审查).
　　[16]Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). *837
　　[17]Ibid.
　　[18]Anderson, supra, at 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (quoting Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100,123, 89 S.Ct. 1562, 23 L.Ed.2d 129 (1969)).
　　[19]Advisory Committee's 1985 Note on subd. (a) of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52, 28 U.S.C.App., pp. 908-909; see also Anderson, supra, at 574-575, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (对事实认定的重新审查通常会付出昂贵的司法资源，却无助于提高准确性).
　　[20]517 U.S., at 372, 116 S.Ct. 1384.
　　[21]Id., at 388, 116 S.Ct. 1384.
　　[22]Id., at 386, 388, 389, 116 S.Ct. 1384.
　　[23]Id., at 388, 116 S.Ct. 1384(对书面文件进行解释是法官的日常工作之一，相比与陪审员，法官能够更好地完成这一工作。)
　　[24]Id., at 372, 116 S.Ct. 1384.
　　[25]Id., at 388-391, 116 S.Ct. 1384.
　　[26]Id., at 384, 386, 388, 389, 116 S.Ct. 1384; see also Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243U.S. 502, 510, 37 S.Ct. 416, 61 L.Ed. 871 (1917) (专利权利要求好比契约的说明，为其所涵盖的权利范围设定边界。”); Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U.S. 222, 227, 26 L.Ed. 149 (1880) (将专利权利要求的解释比作对合同等其他书面文件的解释。).
　　[27]Great Northern R. Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co., 259 U.S. 285, 291, 42 S.Ct. 477, 66 L.Ed. 943 (1922).
　　[28]Id., at 292, 42 S.Ct. 477.
　　[29]Great Northern R. Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co., 259 U.S. 292, 42 S.Ct. 477, 66 L.Ed. 943 (1922).
　　[30]Ibid.; see also 12 R. Lord, Williston on Contracts Ё 34:1, p. 2, 34:19, p. 174 (4th ed. 2012) (在合同解释中，对惯例，即相关产业的做法及想法的阐明，是一个事实问题).
　　[31]See Pullman-Standard, supra at 287, 102 S.Ct. 1781 (这一规则并不从事实认定中排除出特定部分，而是即应用于辅助性事实也用于构成基础事实。）
　　[32]See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52 (设定了事实认定以及判决的审查标准。）
　　[33]517 U.S., at 378, 388, 390, 116 S.Ct. 1384.
　　[34]Id., at 389, 116 S.Ct. 1384.
　　[35]Harries v.Air King Products, Co., 183 F.2d 158, 164 (C.A.2 1950) (L. Hand, C.J.).
　　[36]Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Panduit Corp., 475 U.S. 809, 811, 106 S.Ct. 1578, 89 L.Ed.2d 817 (1986) (per curiam )(地区法院的辅助性决定适用 52（a）条规定的明显错误标准。).(作者：柳楠，来源：华东政法大学知识产权)