線上法律字典-- Dictionaries ：
· law.com Law Dictionary
· findlaw.com Dictionary
· The American Standard Law Dictionary from CyberNation
· Black’s Law Dictionary
· The WWLIA Legal Dictionary
· The Law Office Dictionary
· Glossary of Legal Terms from the Missouri State Bar
· Glossary of Legal Terms from the Wisconsin State Bar
· 中國網站法律語言學研究所收集的線上辭典
參考資料 -- References
· The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (15th ed.)
· Legal Citation by Peter Martin of Cornell Law School
· 法律百科全書-- 'Lectric Law Library contains the "Lawcopedia"
· 世界法律史-- Timetable of World Legal History at WWLIA
12/15/2004
【辭典】court 的種類及其他法律名詞
談法律專門術語翻譯之雙重功能對等原則
法律英文點、線、面（中）
上述資料中，有很多的法律專有名詞可供參考
其中筆者想談的是（見談法律專門術語翻譯之雙重功能對等原則）：
「第一審法院」在英美法制雖有 court of first instance 和 trial court 為其對等詞竤但卻不能以類推方法將「第二審法院」、「第三審法院」譯作 court of second instance, court of third instance 因為英美法律語言中並無此用法故只能譯作 court of appeals (或 appellate court) 以及 court of final (last)appeals
另外還在某一網站上看到：
第一審事實審法院（trial court）
其他另外樀錄：
action（訴訟）、motion（訴訟程序中的請求或聲請）、service（訴訟文書的送達）、appearance（出庭）、find/finding （法院對案件事實之認定）
法律英文點、線、面（中）
上述資料中，有很多的法律專有名詞可供參考
其中筆者想談的是（見談法律專門術語翻譯之雙重功能對等原則）：
「第一審法院」在英美法制雖有 court of first instance 和 trial court 為其對等詞竤但卻不能以類推方法將「第二審法院」、「第三審法院」譯作 court of second instance, court of third instance 因為英美法律語言中並無此用法故只能譯作 court of appeals (或 appellate court) 以及 court of final (last)appeals
另外還在某一網站上看到：
第一審事實審法院（trial court）
其他另外樀錄：
action（訴訟）、motion（訴訟程序中的請求或聲請）、service（訴訟文書的送達）、appearance（出庭）、find/finding （法院對案件事實之認定）
【資訊】新事項與舉發
有一次上課時，洪老師說到，臺灣的新專利法有規定，於申請中修正申請專利範圍時，不能將權利範圍擴大至說明書支持以外，另外又於舉發中規定這亦為舉發的事由，所以修改權利範圍時應注意，不要擴大申請專利範圍至超出說明書所能支持的範圍（即新事項）。
建議：預先修改成一個自己比較放心的claim，也就是說比較小範圍的，才不會受予專利後還被人以此項規定舉發而撤銷，拿不到任何的專利；最後再於受予專後提更正即可。
建議：預先修改成一個自己比較放心的claim，也就是說比較小範圍的，才不會受予專利後還被人以此項規定舉發而撤銷，拿不到任何的專利；最後再於受予專後提更正即可。
12/13/2004
【判例】claim若未主張說明書中有揭露的部分，以後不得適用均等論。
可參見美國判例：JOHNSON & JOHNSTON v. R.E. Service ，說明書有揭露的部分，以後不得適用均等論。其原因如下摘錄：
……, citing YBM Magnex, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 145 F.3d 1317, 46 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Maxwell avoided examination of the unclaimed alternative, which was distinct from the claimed alternative. In view of the distinctness of the two embodiments, both of which were fully described in the specification, the Federal Circuit denied Maxwell the opportunity to enforce the unclaimed embodiment as an equivalent of the one that was claimed. …… Thus, this court must decide whether a patentee can apply the doctrine of equivalents to cover unclaimed subject matter disclosed in the specification. …… Consistent with its scope definition and notice functions, the claim requirement presupposes that a patent applicant defines his invention in the claims, not in the specification. After all, the claims, not the specification, provide the measure of the patentee’s right to exclude. …… McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424 (1891) (“The claim is the measure of his right to relief, and while the specification may be referred to to limit the claim, it can never be made available to expand it.”); SRI Int’l, 775 F.2d at 1121, n.14 (“Specifications teach. Claims claim.”). …… Moreover, a patentee cannot narrowly claim an invention to avoid prosecution scrutiny by the PTO, and then, after patent issuance, use the doctrine of equivalents to establish infringement because the specification discloses equivalents. “Such a result would merely encourage a patent applicant to present a broad disclosure in the specification of the application and file narrow claims, avoiding examination of broader claims that the applicant could have filed consistent with the specification.” Maxwell, 86 F.3d at 1107 (citing Genentech, Inc. v. Wellcome Found. Ltd., 29 F.3d 1555, 1564, 31 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). …… A patentee who inadvertently fails to claim disclosed subject matter, however, is not left without remedy. Within two years from the grant of the original patent, a patentee may file a reissue application and attempt to enlarge the scope of the original claims to include the disclosed but previously unclaimed subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 251 (2000). In addition, a patentee can file a separate application claiming the disclosed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (2000) (allowing filing as a continuation application if filed before all applications in the chain issue).
……，引用YBM Magnex, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 145 F.3d 1317, 46 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1998)。……。Maxwell避免了未主張權利之實施例選項的審查，而這個實施例選項卻又與主張權利之實施例選項有所區別。以該等兩實施例之區別來觀看，兩者皆完全揭露於說明書中，Federal Circuit否定了Maxwell將未主張權利之實施例視為有主張權利之實施例的均等物。……。因此，本法庭必須決定專利權人是否可以適用均等論，覆蓋揭露於說明書中卻沒有主張權利的部分。……。在它定義的範圍與它告知功能一致下，申請專利範圍的要件是預先假定專利申請人將他的發明定義在申請專利範圍中，而不是說明書內。必竟是以申請專利範圍，去計量專利權人排除他人的權利，而不是說明書。……。McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424 (1891)（“是以申請專利範圍計量他所釋放權利，同時可能會說明書來限制申請專利範圍，說明書不能被利用來擴大申請專利範圍。”）……。尤其是，專利權人不能狹窄地主張發明的權利範圍，以避免PTO的審查程序的檢查，然後於專利公告發證後，卻因說明書揭露了均等物就使用均等論建立侵權。“這樣的結果僅僅是鼓勵專利申請人於申請案的說明書中描述較廣的揭露，卻提出較窄的申請專利範圍，避免審查較廣的申請專利範圍，而這欲又是申請人所可以提出的與說明書一致的申請專利範圍。” Maxwell, 86 F.3d at 1107 (citing Genentech, Inc. v. Wellcome Found. Ltd., 29 F.3d 1555, 1564, 31 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).。……。不過，雖然專利權人會因不慎而未對已揭露的發明內容主張權利，但並非沒有補救辦法。在原始的專利被授予時的兩年內，專利權人可以提出再發證申請案，試圖擴大原始申請專利範圍的範圍，以包含有揭露先前卻沒有主張權利的發明內容。35 U.S.C. § 251 (2000)（若在所有的申請案公告發證前提出，係允許提出一個延續案）.。另外，依據35 U.S.C. § 120 (2000)，專利權人還可以提出個別的申請案，來主張已揭露之發明內容的權利範圍。
另外，更早前還有一個案例，YBM Magnex, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 145 F.3d 1317, 46 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1998)，判決結果卻不相同，它所持的理由是，說明書有提及的內容，是可以教示或公知公眾，其發明內容的均等物是什麼？只是最新的判例PSC COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC.,vs.
FOXCONN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD.,也是捨棄這樣的觀點了。
……, citing YBM Magnex, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 145 F.3d 1317, 46 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Maxwell avoided examination of the unclaimed alternative, which was distinct from the claimed alternative. In view of the distinctness of the two embodiments, both of which were fully described in the specification, the Federal Circuit denied Maxwell the opportunity to enforce the unclaimed embodiment as an equivalent of the one that was claimed. …… Thus, this court must decide whether a patentee can apply the doctrine of equivalents to cover unclaimed subject matter disclosed in the specification. …… Consistent with its scope definition and notice functions, the claim requirement presupposes that a patent applicant defines his invention in the claims, not in the specification. After all, the claims, not the specification, provide the measure of the patentee’s right to exclude. …… McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424 (1891) (“The claim is the measure of his right to relief, and while the specification may be referred to to limit the claim, it can never be made available to expand it.”); SRI Int’l, 775 F.2d at 1121, n.14 (“Specifications teach. Claims claim.”). …… Moreover, a patentee cannot narrowly claim an invention to avoid prosecution scrutiny by the PTO, and then, after patent issuance, use the doctrine of equivalents to establish infringement because the specification discloses equivalents. “Such a result would merely encourage a patent applicant to present a broad disclosure in the specification of the application and file narrow claims, avoiding examination of broader claims that the applicant could have filed consistent with the specification.” Maxwell, 86 F.3d at 1107 (citing Genentech, Inc. v. Wellcome Found. Ltd., 29 F.3d 1555, 1564, 31 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). …… A patentee who inadvertently fails to claim disclosed subject matter, however, is not left without remedy. Within two years from the grant of the original patent, a patentee may file a reissue application and attempt to enlarge the scope of the original claims to include the disclosed but previously unclaimed subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 251 (2000). In addition, a patentee can file a separate application claiming the disclosed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (2000) (allowing filing as a continuation application if filed before all applications in the chain issue).
……，引用YBM Magnex, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 145 F.3d 1317, 46 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1998)。……。Maxwell避免了未主張權利之實施例選項的審查，而這個實施例選項卻又與主張權利之實施例選項有所區別。以該等兩實施例之區別來觀看，兩者皆完全揭露於說明書中，Federal Circuit否定了Maxwell將未主張權利之實施例視為有主張權利之實施例的均等物。……。因此，本法庭必須決定專利權人是否可以適用均等論，覆蓋揭露於說明書中卻沒有主張權利的部分。……。在它定義的範圍與它告知功能一致下，申請專利範圍的要件是預先假定專利申請人將他的發明定義在申請專利範圍中，而不是說明書內。必竟是以申請專利範圍，去計量專利權人排除他人的權利，而不是說明書。……。McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424 (1891)（“是以申請專利範圍計量他所釋放權利，同時可能會說明書來限制申請專利範圍，說明書不能被利用來擴大申請專利範圍。”）……。尤其是，專利權人不能狹窄地主張發明的權利範圍，以避免PTO的審查程序的檢查，然後於專利公告發證後，卻因說明書揭露了均等物就使用均等論建立侵權。“這樣的結果僅僅是鼓勵專利申請人於申請案的說明書中描述較廣的揭露，卻提出較窄的申請專利範圍，避免審查較廣的申請專利範圍，而這欲又是申請人所可以提出的與說明書一致的申請專利範圍。” Maxwell, 86 F.3d at 1107 (citing Genentech, Inc. v. Wellcome Found. Ltd., 29 F.3d 1555, 1564, 31 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).。……。不過，雖然專利權人會因不慎而未對已揭露的發明內容主張權利，但並非沒有補救辦法。在原始的專利被授予時的兩年內，專利權人可以提出再發證申請案，試圖擴大原始申請專利範圍的範圍，以包含有揭露先前卻沒有主張權利的發明內容。35 U.S.C. § 251 (2000)（若在所有的申請案公告發證前提出，係允許提出一個延續案）.。另外，依據35 U.S.C. § 120 (2000)，專利權人還可以提出個別的申請案，來主張已揭露之發明內容的權利範圍。
另外，更早前還有一個案例，YBM Magnex, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 145 F.3d 1317, 46 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1998)，判決結果卻不相同，它所持的理由是，說明書有提及的內容，是可以教示或公知公眾，其發明內容的均等物是什麼？只是最新的判例PSC COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC.,vs.
FOXCONN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD.,也是捨棄這樣的觀點了。
12/10/2004
【辭典】construction 解譯
construction of claim、claim construction：解譯申請專利範圍
筆者滿喜歡看元勤智識網的免費文章的，在它的文章中“construction”都會翻成“建構”，一開始覺得怪怪的後來慢慢的就習慣了，而且還以為那是專利的術語，其他還看過周律師的文章翻成“界定”。
事實上若上中國的網站的話會看到中國將其翻成“解譯”；若查onelook的話會看到它的一個定義如下：an interpretation of a text or action。所以也許在臺灣也應該改正為“解譯”這樣子會比較好。
可再參見日文書isbn：4-938815-14-1。
“construction”意指：確定成文法、書面、或口頭同意事項等的真實意思；或者是適切地解譯該等中所使用的曖昧用語。
具體而言，“interpretation”是限定在對表達於書面之事項的調查；“construction”則是參照以上的事項來確定其真實的意思。
另外參見“You Said What?”A Look At The Influence Of Foreign Patent Prosecution On Domestic Infringement Litigation
8] In patent law, the terms claim construction and claim interpretation mean one and the same. Id. at 976 n.6.
筆者滿喜歡看元勤智識網的免費文章的，在它的文章中“construction”都會翻成“建構”，一開始覺得怪怪的後來慢慢的就習慣了，而且還以為那是專利的術語，其他還看過周律師的文章翻成“界定”。
事實上若上中國的網站的話會看到中國將其翻成“解譯”；若查onelook的話會看到它的一個定義如下：an interpretation of a text or action。所以也許在臺灣也應該改正為“解譯”這樣子會比較好。
可再參見日文書isbn：4-938815-14-1。
“construction”意指：確定成文法、書面、或口頭同意事項等的真實意思；或者是適切地解譯該等中所使用的曖昧用語。
具體而言，“interpretation”是限定在對表達於書面之事項的調查；“construction”則是參照以上的事項來確定其真實的意思。
另外參見“You Said What?”A Look At The Influence Of Foreign Patent Prosecution On Domestic Infringement Litigation
8] In patent law, the terms claim construction and claim interpretation mean one and the same. Id. at 976 n.6.
12/06/2004
【資訊】Means-Plus-Function Claims Lose at the Federal Circuit
在網路上看到一篇有趣的文章「Patently Obvious: Patent Law Blog: Means-Plus-Function Claims Lose at the Federal Circuit」，是關於Means-Plus-Function：
過去幾年來，聯邦巡迴上訴法院持續限制means限制條件的範圍，這樣的限制條件被法院解譯成僅覆及對應於說明書所記載的結構、以及其相當者（equivalents thereof.），因此若使用means申請專利範圍限制條件，則應絕對地確知，該結構已完全地（且寬廣地？）記載於說明書中。
於大家都承認不科學的判例法中，Hal Wegner律師研究了最近15個CAFC關於means-plus-function用語的意見。結果：
接受專利權人對means用語的解譯：0%
接受專利權人辯解該用語不是means用語：14%
撤銷非侵權的簡易判決：7%
專利權人輸了訴訟：80%
因此，在80%的訴訟中（15中的12件），專利擁有人使用means語言都是輸家。（Hal，真是感謝你做了這項研究）
過去幾年來，聯邦巡迴上訴法院持續限制means限制條件的範圍，這樣的限制條件被法院解譯成僅覆及對應於說明書所記載的結構、以及其相當者（equivalents thereof.），因此若使用means申請專利範圍限制條件，則應絕對地確知，該結構已完全地（且寬廣地？）記載於說明書中。
於大家都承認不科學的判例法中，Hal Wegner律師研究了最近15個CAFC關於means-plus-function用語的意見。結果：
接受專利權人對means用語的解譯：0%
接受專利權人辯解該用語不是means用語：14%
撤銷非侵權的簡易判決：7%
專利權人輸了訴訟：80%
因此，在80%的訴訟中（15中的12件），專利擁有人使用means語言都是輸家。（Hal，真是感謝你做了這項研究）
12/03/2004
【判例】於審查專利過程中申請專利範圍應做最廣解譯
若一前案揭露了“back-end systems”，而後案揭露了“user computers”，那麼後案的“user computers”有沒有包含“back-end systems”呢？可參見：IN RE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE TECH CENTER
During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” . . . . . . The “broadest reasonable construction” rule applies to reexaminations as well as initial examinations. . . . . . . Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified.” . . . . . . . An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” . . . . . . . Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant (or, in this case, the patentee), because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. . . . . . . .In the district court litigation, the court construed “user computer” to refer to a computer that serves one user at a time. However, the Board is required to use a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts. We have held that it is error for the Board to “appl[y] the mode of claim interpretation that is used by courts in litigation, when interpreting the claims of issued patents in connection with determinations of infringement and validity.”
CFCA認為：審查專利過程中申請專利範圍應給予合理的最廣解譯，不管是初審時或是再審時（美國的再審）都應如此，這樣才可以避免申請專利範圍在訴訟中被擴大解譯，最主要的目的是審理後的申請專利範圍才會precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous，才可刪去不確定的申請專利範圍。雖然專利權人提出地方法院和Board解譯申請專利範圍的方法不相同，但本應如此，地方法院解譯申請專利範圍，是在對已受予專利進行侵權和有效性的決定，若Board和以與地方法院相同的方式解譯申請專利範圍才是錯誤的。雖然兩者矛盾，但這不會對專利權人不公平，因為專利權人係有機會修正申請專利範圍，使它包含更精確的範圍。
註：最後Board 將user computer 解譯成包含任何能讓使用者跑應用程式的電腦，所以也就預見了back-end systems，故判定後案不具可專利性。原文如下：the Board adopted a broader construction of the claim term “user computer” that encompassed any computer “capable of running application programs for a user.” That construction reached the back-end systems of the prior art.。
註：還可參見日本河野事務所的美國CAFC判例介紹。
During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” . . . . . . The “broadest reasonable construction” rule applies to reexaminations as well as initial examinations. . . . . . . Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified.” . . . . . . . An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” . . . . . . . Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant (or, in this case, the patentee), because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. . . . . . . .In the district court litigation, the court construed “user computer” to refer to a computer that serves one user at a time. However, the Board is required to use a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts. We have held that it is error for the Board to “appl[y] the mode of claim interpretation that is used by courts in litigation, when interpreting the claims of issued patents in connection with determinations of infringement and validity.”
CFCA認為：審查專利過程中申請專利範圍應給予合理的最廣解譯，不管是初審時或是再審時（美國的再審）都應如此，這樣才可以避免申請專利範圍在訴訟中被擴大解譯，最主要的目的是審理後的申請專利範圍才會precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous，才可刪去不確定的申請專利範圍。雖然專利權人提出地方法院和Board解譯申請專利範圍的方法不相同，但本應如此，地方法院解譯申請專利範圍，是在對已受予專利進行侵權和有效性的決定，若Board和以與地方法院相同的方式解譯申請專利範圍才是錯誤的。雖然兩者矛盾，但這不會對專利權人不公平，因為專利權人係有機會修正申請專利範圍，使它包含更精確的範圍。
註：最後Board 將user computer 解譯成包含任何能讓使用者跑應用程式的電腦，所以也就預見了back-end systems，故判定後案不具可專利性。原文如下：the Board adopted a broader construction of the claim term “user computer” that encompassed any computer “capable of running application programs for a user.” That construction reached the back-end systems of the prior art.。
註：還可參見日本河野事務所的美國CAFC判例介紹。
12/02/2004
【判例】"step for" 美國專利法112條第6段
使用"step for"的方法的申請專利範圍，會自動推定為適用美國專利法112條第6段嗎？可參見：
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., et al. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al.: "
We conclude that the district court erred in applying �112 �6. Method claims necessarily recite the steps of the method, and the preamble words that 'the method comprises the steps of' do not automatically convert each ensuing step into the form of �112 �6.
方法請求項必定會提及“step of method”，所以前言部的用語，即方法包含“step of”，不會自動推定之後的step為適用第112條第6段。
Nor does the preamble usage 'steps of' create a presumption that each ensuing step is in step-plus-function form; to the contrary, the absence of the signal 'step for' creates the contrary presumption.
前言部使用“step of”也不會推定之後的每個step為“step-plus-function”的形式。
The district court's claim construction is modified accordingly; the 'determining' step must be construed, as for all claim steps, in light of the specification and the prosecution history.
決定性的step，全部的step亦然，必須依據說明書及申請過程歷史來解譯。
We remand to the district court for that purpose."
註：CAFC的判決是申請專利範圍是否適用美國專利法112條第6段的推定，應依據說明書及申請過程歷史來判斷。
註：還可參見日本河野事務所的美國CAFC判例介紹。
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., et al. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al.: "
We conclude that the district court erred in applying �112 �6. Method claims necessarily recite the steps of the method, and the preamble words that 'the method comprises the steps of' do not automatically convert each ensuing step into the form of �112 �6.
方法請求項必定會提及“step of method”，所以前言部的用語，即方法包含“step of”，不會自動推定之後的step為適用第112條第6段。
Nor does the preamble usage 'steps of' create a presumption that each ensuing step is in step-plus-function form; to the contrary, the absence of the signal 'step for' creates the contrary presumption.
前言部使用“step of”也不會推定之後的每個step為“step-plus-function”的形式。
The district court's claim construction is modified accordingly; the 'determining' step must be construed, as for all claim steps, in light of the specification and the prosecution history.
決定性的step，全部的step亦然，必須依據說明書及申請過程歷史來解譯。
We remand to the district court for that purpose."
註：CAFC的判決是申請專利範圍是否適用美國專利法112條第6段的推定，應依據說明書及申請過程歷史來判斷。
註：還可參見日本河野事務所的美國CAFC判例介紹。
【辭典】JMOL（Judgment as a matter of law）依法律判決
JMOL（Judgment as a matter of law）依法律判決
JMOL為判決的一種，相異於陪審團的裁決。它係為做出與陪審團所做出的裁決相反的判決，亦即，當陪審團的裁決對原告有利時，做出對被告有利的判決；當陪審團的裁決對被告有利時，則做出對原告有利的判決。可以說是在陪審團的裁決錯誤時，才做JMOL判決。亦即，只要是一般合理的陪審，當法官判斷為對於爭點做出對當事者有利的裁決卻沒有法律上足夠的證據時，可以做出JMOL判決。Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1) (JMOL is appropriate when "a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.")。因此，除非是在陪審團的裁決沒有受實質的証據所支持時；或是基據錯誤的法律做判斷時，不然JMOL判決是不適當的。雖然陪審團的裁決對當事者不利，法官可以答覆當事者的聲請做出JMOL判決，但是僅限於在該當事者進入審判（trial）前，“サマリージャジメント”聲請（申し立て）被駁回時。
僅供參考，有很多的專有名詞如何翻成中文，身邊又沒有法律字典！
此篇為網路看到的文章，筆者感到有興趣才將其翻譯出，請參照ken的美國法律散步道路，其中名詞的部分因為我也不是很清楚，也沒有字典、法律背景來支持所以有的以英文原文和日文原文直接表示！
JMOL為判決的一種，相異於陪審團的裁決。它係為做出與陪審團所做出的裁決相反的判決，亦即，當陪審團的裁決對原告有利時，做出對被告有利的判決；當陪審團的裁決對被告有利時，則做出對原告有利的判決。可以說是在陪審團的裁決錯誤時，才做JMOL判決。亦即，只要是一般合理的陪審，當法官判斷為對於爭點做出對當事者有利的裁決卻沒有法律上足夠的證據時，可以做出JMOL判決。Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1) (JMOL is appropriate when "a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.")。因此，除非是在陪審團的裁決沒有受實質的証據所支持時；或是基據錯誤的法律做判斷時，不然JMOL判決是不適當的。雖然陪審團的裁決對當事者不利，法官可以答覆當事者的聲請做出JMOL判決，但是僅限於在該當事者進入審判（trial）前，“サマリージャジメント”聲請（申し立て）被駁回時。
僅供參考，有很多的專有名詞如何翻成中文，身邊又沒有法律字典！
此篇為網路看到的文章，筆者感到有興趣才將其翻譯出，請參照ken的美國法律散步道路，其中名詞的部分因為我也不是很清楚，也沒有字典、法律背景來支持所以有的以英文原文和日文原文直接表示！
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)