The article discusses a legal case between JMC Electronics Co., Ltd. and Chipbond Technology Corporation regarding the interpretation of a patent claim. JMC Electronics filed an invalidation action against Chipbond's patent on a printed wiring board, leading to Taiwan IPO revoking claims 3-8 of the patent. Chipbond challenged this decision in court, arguing for a specific interpretation of the 'protruding' feature in the patent claim based on technical features in the drawings. However, the Taiwan Intellectual Property and Commercial Court ruled against Chipbond, stating that the claim interpretation should be based on the text of the claims, not on specific embodiments in the drawings or specification. The court upheld the IPO's decision, emphasizing the importance of precise claim drafting in patents to avoid overly broad or narrow interpretations that could lead to invalidation or infringement issues.

The article discusses the judgment trends of parameter claims in China through the analysis of several recent cases. Parameter claims, which define technical features with physical or chemical parameters, are common in the material field. The article outlines three main points from the cases: 1) Parameters must be clearly and reliably defined by a skilled person using the specification or normal technical means. 2) The problems to be solved, effects achieved, and normal means used by a skilled person should be combined to determine if the patent's parameters are disclosed. 3) Whether parameters significantly change and improve the structure and/or performance is key to judging inventive step. The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) rulings in these cases emphasize the need for clarity in parameter definition and the significance of parameters in improving patent claims. The article suggests strategies for patentees to consider when asserting parameter claims in China.

The article discusses a legal case in Taiwan where the Supreme Administrative Court reversed a previous judgment regarding the inventive step of a mechanical patent held by BETO ENGINEERING AND MARKETING CO., LTD. The patent in question, TWI560384, was challenged by Wu, Shu Mu, who filed an invalidation action. Initially, TIPO invalidated the patent claims due to lack of inventive step, but the IPCC overturned this decision for claim 3. Upon appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court found ambiguities in the IPCC's judgment and determined that claim 3 lacked an inventive step, remanding the case for retrial. The article highlights the difficulties in proving inventive step in mechanical patents when the claims are broadly defined and the prior art has similar components. It also suggests that more specific descriptions and clear illustrations of the technical features and their effects in the patent specification could help in establishing an inventive step.

The article discusses the ineffectiveness of a cybersecurity defense method known as 'gradient masking' against adversarial attacks on deep learning systems. Gradient masking aims to protect a model by hiding the gradient, which adversarial example construction techniques typically exploit to modify an image so that it is misclassified. The article explains that simply running a model in 'most likely class' mode, which does not reveal gradients, does not prevent misclassification of adversarial examples. Attackers can train their own models to create adversarial examples that will still fool the defended model. The thought experiment concludes that gradient masking does not enhance the robustness of the model and fails to provide a reliable defense.

The article discusses the invalidation of a patent held by Dow Global Technologies LLC and Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP Holdings, Inc. by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). The patent in question, related to a polyurethane polishing pad, was challenged by an individual named Wang Wei-Siou for lacking an inventive step. The CNIPA found that the patent did not meet the inventive criteria due to insufficient experimental data to support the claimed technical effects. The article details the technical aspects of the patent, the comparison with prior art, and the CNIPA's reasoning for the decision. It also provides strategic advice for patent specifications, emphasizing the importance of including experimental data that covers all claim limitations to prove an inventive step.