欧美判例翻译(11)

　　[37]Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. LindeAir Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 610, 70 S.Ct. 854, 94 L.Ed. 1097 (1950).
　　[38]Cf. Lighting Ballast, 744 F.3d, at 1311 (O'Malley, J., dissenting) (地区法院法官拥有使其事实判定更公正合理的手段，比如询问专家、对发明进行实际测试、任命法院指定专家等，而联邦巡回上诉法院法官则没有这些手段); Anderson, 470 U.S., at 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (“The trial judge's major role is the determination of fact,and with experience in fulfilling that role comes expertise”初审法官的主要职责就是确定案件事实).
　　[39]Tr. of Oral Arg. 39.
　　[40]Id., at 38；see also Lighting Ballast, supra, at 1284 (批评明显错误原则，某种程度上是因为认为从法律问题中区分出事实问题比较困难。).
　　[41]See, e.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 947-948, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985(1995) (review of factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo is the “ordinary” standard forcourts of appeals 对于上诉法院而言，以明显错误标准审查事实认定、以重新审查标准审查法律结论是惯常的做法).
　　[42]See e.g., Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (C.A.Fed.1998) (en banc) (权利要求解释并不包含正举行的事实认定。); Lighting Ballast, supra, at 1284 (权利要求的解释属于事实认定); Dow Jones &Co. v.Ablaise Ltd., 606 F.3d 1338, 1344-1345 (C.A.Fed.2010) (这一法院在审查权利要求的解释时并未尊重初审法官的观点。); Nazomi Communications Inc. v.Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1371 (C.A.Fed.2005) (要求初审法院的意见应当被考虑); Lightning Ballast, supra, at 1294 (Lourie, J., concurring) (我们不应当推翻地区法院真实的辅助性事实认定; 我们应当尊重下级法院法官的工作); Cybor, supra, at 1480 (opinion of Newman,J.) (我们未能通过假设权利要求解释中没有事实问题而简化诉讼程序。); see also Anderson,?supra, at 575, 105S.Ct. 1504 (诉辩双方在初审时，都已经集中其资源与精力说服初审法官其所主张的事实是正确的，不需要再要求其在上诉阶段再去说服其他三名法官。); Brief for Peter S. Menell et al. asAmici Curiae 5 (巡回上诉法院以异常高的比例推翻地区法院的权利要求解释。).
　　[43]Lighting Ballast, supra, at 1280.
　　[44]See *840Markman, 517 U.S., at 391, 116 S.Ct. 1384
　　[45]Id., at 389-390, 116 S.Ct. 1384.
　　[46]Post, at 844, 846 - 848 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).
　　[47]517 U.S., at 389-390, 116 S.Ct. 1384.
　　[48]Tr. of Oral Arg. 33-34, 38-40.
　　[49]See Dennison, 475 U.S., at 811, 106 S.Ct. 1578.
　　[50]See Pet. for Cert. i（对地区法院用来解释专利权利要求中名词的事实认定而言，应当采用重新审查标准还是仅仅采用明显错误标准？）
　　[51]See, e.g., Markman, supra, at 384, 386, 388, 389, 116 S.Ct. 1384; Motion Picture Patents Co., 243 U.S., at 510,37 S.Ct. 416; Goodyear, 102 U.S., at 227.
　　[52]See Brief for Petitioners 27, Reply Brief 16; Brief for Respondents 43; see also Brief for United States as
　　Amicus Curiae 12-13.
　　[53]See, e.g., Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 546, 20 L.Ed. 33 (1871) (一个专利中包含了众多技术术语、专业术语，使得我们只有在科学的证据的帮助下才能正确理解其含义。).(作者：柳楠，来源：华东政法大学知识产权)