我國發明專利侵害鑑定之方法（中）專利工程師 / 陳詠容
Ways to examine invention patent infringements in Taiwan (2)
Patent Engineer Yung-Zhong Chen
According to the doctrine of equivalents theory, despite the scope of clams is in line with the context, to determine whether such difference is “insubstantial” or not, it is important to figure out the difference between the feature in the accused device and the limitation literally recited in the patent claim. The patent claim may be found to be “insubstantial” only if its technical means and the accused parties perform substantially the different function in a substantial different way with substantial different results. Nevertheless, the doctrine of equivalents analysis is applied to individual claim limitations, not to the invention as a whole. In the United States, there only needs one kind of identity test to come to its conclusion for which the doctrine of equivalent is only considered as claimed of invention which described its purpose that does not directly allow a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement. In Taiwan, the “Key point draft 2015” deleted everything against the doctrine of equivalents theory.
Due to the fact that when interpreting patent claims, there is strict literalism, which cannot reasonably expect patentee to write down all the claims which cannot foreseen when lodging its patent application. Therefore the scope of claim should not be read literally for which a patent literally “reads on” an accused infringer’s device or process rather than looking at its intention. Nevertheless, the expansion of claim coverage is to protect its patentees’ right, would cause the general public not knowing the actual scope of its patent claims in result of uncertainties. Whether there are any patent infringements or not would give rise to its litigation and social costs. Therefore, the doctrines of equivalents would need to narrow the literal scope of the patent claim. By comparing the “key points on invention patent infringement in 2004”, the” key points on invention patent infringement draft 2015”, the expansion of claim coverage permitted the doctrine of equivalents, however the patentee is limited by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel and the prior art.
呈上，專利權人於專利申請過程為符合專利申請要件或為維護專利，而所為之修正、更正或申復，導致最後限縮專利權範圍，則專利權人便無法依據均等論主張其於申請專利時無法預見但實質相同的技術特徵。換而言之，該修正、更正或申復將導致放棄的部分，專利權人不得再藉由均等論而重為主張其所放棄之申請標的，此即所謂的歷史禁反言。From the above analysis, for the patentee to fulfill its patent application requirement so as to maintain its patent, it is necessary to amend, correct and response in result of narrowing the scope of claims, patentee cannot claim for something which cannot foresee base on the doctrine of equivalents theory. In other words, patentee who has filed a patent application and then to amend, correct and response its claim by narrowing its amendments to accommodate the patent law, would be precluded from invoking the doctrine of equivalents to broaden the scope of their claims to cover subject matter ceded by the amendments.
專利侵害鑑定要點，經濟部智慧財產局，2004年。Intellectual Property Office (2004) Key points on invention patent infringement.
專利侵害鑑定要點草案， 經濟部智慧財產局，2015年。Intellectual Property Office (2015) Key points on invention patent infringement draft.
劉尚志、張添榜、陳薈潁，專利均等侵害判斷之判決分析：由美國專利案例觀照臺灣最高法院判決，台灣法學雜誌第219期，2013年，第112-143頁。Shang-Zhi Liu., Tian-Bang Zhang., Hui-Ying Chen. (2013) Case analysis on patent infringement: using US Supreme Court’s patent case as reflection on Taiwan Supreme Court’s ruling. Taiwan Law Journal 219 edition, page 112-143.