- 期刊
有關手段功能用語申請專利範圍之法律適用－兼論智慧財產法院98年度民專上易字3號民事判決
Proper Laws and Regulations for the Claims of Patent Application for Means-Plus-Function Language-Concurrent Discussion on Civil Decision of 2009 Min-Zhuan-Shang-Yi-Zi No. 3 Made by Intellectual Property
摘要
我國自97年7月智慧財產法院開始運作以來，對於專利訴訟進行日趨專業化以及有效率，尤其在專利侵權訴訟中，由於智慧財產案件審理法第16條規定，被控侵權人往往提出專利權有效性抗辮，其中包括主張「手段（步驟）功能用語」之適用，將可能限縮申請專利範圍之效果，致使構成被控侵權物品之侵權可能性降低，故「手段（步驟）功能用語」將成為被控侵權人在攻防上重要策略之一。 目前我國法制上就「手段（步驟）功能用語」之適用仍缺乏細部規定，相關規定係87年公布施行之電腦軟體相關發明審查基準，與93年7月1日施行之專利法施行細則第18條第8項，本文係透過分析智慧財產法院98年度民專上易字3號民事判決，討論判斷系爭專利之技術特徵是否包含手段功能用語之「97年電腦軟體相關發明」，以及系爭專利非屬於「電腦軟體相關發明」，是否仍適用「電腦軟體審查基率」等爭點，希冀能降低日後有關手段功能用語申請專利範圍法律適用上之爭議。
關鍵字
無資料並列摘要
Since its operation on July 2008, Taiwan's Intellectual Property Court has gradually tended to become more specialized and efficient in patent litigation, especially for the patent infringement litigation, in accordance with the regulation of Article 16, Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act, the accused infringer is frequently proposed the plea of patent validity, which including the claim of application for ”Means Plus (Step) Function Language”, and it may possibly limit and reduce the effectiveness of patent claims which results in lowering the possibility of patent infringement for the infringement-accused object; therefore, the ”Means-Plus-(Step)-Function Language” will become one of important strategies for accused infringers with dealing infringement litigation. Currently, Taiwan's legal system still lacks of the proper and detailed regulations for ”Means-Plus-(Step)-Function Language”, and only related laws or regulations are the Examination Guidelines for Computer Software Related Inventions which promulgated and implemented on 1998, and Paragraph 1, Article 18 of Enforcement Rules of the Patent Law that promulgated and implemented on 1 July 2004. In addition, through the analysis of the Civil Decision of 2009 Min-Zhuan-Shang-Yi-Zi No. 3 that made by Intellectual Property Court, this study has conducted the discussion on the decision whether the technical features of patent claim included the ”2008 Computer Software Related Inventions” for Means Plus Function Language; however, if the patent claim is not the ”Computer Software Related Inventions”, then whether the ”Examination Guidelines for Computer Software” is applicable or not. As a result, this study is hoped to decrease the dispute about the applicable laws or regulations for the patent claims of Means-Plus-Function Language.