眾律國際法律事務所/眾律國際專利商標事務所

我國發明專利侵害鑑定之方法（上）專利工程師  /  陳詠容

Ways to examine invention patent infringements in Taiwan (1)

Patent Engineer Yung-Zhong Chen

為了保護發明人的智慧財產權，我國專利法授予專利權人於一定的期間內，享有法律賦予之專利權，排除他人未經其同意而實施其專利。而當他人未經專利權人同意而製造、販賣、為販賣之要約、使用或為上述目的而進口其專利物品時，專利權人得依《專利法》及《民法》請求損害賠償。倘專利侵權案件有爭議，雙方當事人得尋求法律途徑解決。法院在受理發明專利訴訟案件時，依據《專利法》第103條第2項及第3項規定，得囑託司法院指定之侵害專利鑑定專業機構為鑑定。經濟部智慧財產局（以下簡稱「智財局」）為有助於侵害專利鑑定機構提昇作業之正確性，遂提出「專利侵害鑑定要點」供法官於送鑑定時參考。

In order to protect inventor’s intellectual property right, Taiwan’s patent law authorities may grant its patentee, within a considerable period of time, some legal patent rights. Unless otherwise provided in this Act, the patentee of a patented article shall have the exclusive right to preclude others from manufacturing, making an offer to sale, selling, using or importing for above purposes the patented article without his/her prior consent. Patentee can request for damages in pursuant to the “Patent Law” and “Civil Law”. If disputes arises in terms of infringement on an invention patent, both parties can resolve its conflict through litigation, Pursuant to Patent Law Article 103, Paragraph 2(3) in regards to litigation involving an invention patent, the Judicial Yuan may appoint specific professional institution(s) to perform the expert verification work as required in patent infringement case. In order to help to increase the accuracy for specific professional institution(s) to perform the expert verification work as required in patent infringement case(s), the Ministry of Economic Affairs Intellectual Property Office (“Intellectual Property Office”), may list out all the relevant evidences of invention patent infringements before court.

智財局於2015年草擬的「專利侵害鑑定要點草案」（以下簡稱「2015年要點草案」）中指出，在判斷專利是否有被侵害時，應先解釋專利範圍之文字意義，以合理界定專利權範圍。後比對經文字解釋後之專利技術特徵，及被控侵權對象之技術內容的差別。文字意義解釋的用意在於確認專利是否完全對應表現在被控侵權對象中（文義讀取）。一般常見被控侵權物雖未落入文義讀取的範圍內，惟其僅就其申請專利範圍之技術特徵稍作非實質之改變或替換，基於保障專利權人利益的立場，專利權範圍得擴大至，與專利範圍之技術特徵均等的範圍，而非僅侷限於專利之文義範圍（均等論）。According to the “key points on invention patent infringement draft” (“key point draft 2015”) indicates that in order to examine there is any invention patent infringements, shall understand its literal meaning written in its specifications so as to know what is covered in its claims and the drawings of the application. After having its literal interpretation done on its technical patent and infringement parties’ technical contents of an invention, it is to confirm whether such infringements are truly reflected to the corresponding object (literally). Despite the general infringement has not been written in its specification, if you make some amendments to its claims and the drawings of the application, would protect patentee’s best interest by expanding its clams of specification. By pursuing the doctrine of equivalents would allow a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement despite such infringement does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim, but can nevertheless be equivalent to the claimed invention (doctrine of equivalents).

我國有部分法院見解在判斷被控侵權物是否落入均等範圍時，已採取美國的三步測試法，比較兩者之間是否以實質相同的手段，達成實質相同的功能，進一步判斷是否產生實質相同的結果。值得注意的是，均等論如被過度廣泛應用，勢必將會與智財局公告的專利保護範圍產生衝突，而法院判決並沒有權利擴大專利局核准的專利範圍。因此，均等論與文義讀取皆應建立在全要件原則的基礎上，專利範圍請求項經智財局公告的專利範圍，都被視為決定專利範圍的重要限制，亦即，申請專利請求項中的技術特徵，均用於比對被控侵權對象。 In order to determine whether such infringement falls into its doctrine of equivalents category, Taiwan adapted United States’ “triple identity” test on whether the accused device performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way and to yield substantially the same result. However, if the “doctrine of equivalents” is being used widely, conflict may arise with the scope of patent protection made by the Intellectual Property Office. The court may not have the power to expand the scope of the claims and the drawings of the application. Therefore, the “doctrine of equivalents” and its literature should be built on the full requirements. Where the contents of an invention claimed in a patent application are published, would be treated as major decision to restrict the scope of patent claiming. Therefore, the scope of claims shall indicate distinctly on its technical features so as to identify the alleged infringement parties.

參考資料：References

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.  

專利法。Patent Laws

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.