新型專利制度之比較研究

A Comparative Study on Utility Model System

林衍如(Yen-Ju Lin)

指導教授 ： 蔡明誠

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.00809

摘要

新型專利於我國施行至今，持續獲得產業高度普遍利用性，但實際運作所生之疑義，卻促使學術及實務界不斷提出有關新型專利存在及制度設計之質疑，對此，修法機關長期關注各界對於現行專利法規範不妥處所提出之看法，於民國98年12月3日提出專利法修正草案經行政院院會通過，並於民國100年11月29日完成立法三讀通過。本文誕生時點適逢修正草案經提出至通過階段，故乃以新型專利制度運作爭議出發，比較德國、日本及中國大陸之立法例，評析現行專利法規範及修法內容施行之妥適性。
自新型專利於國際間受保護之歷史觀點出發，可知其保護源起係為技術程度較為不高之小發明而設，然考量以進步性劃分新型與發明專利之技術程度高低難以區辨，修法已刪除此一要件之分野，對此本文以為，未來新型專利之發明創作是否將因進步性要件要求提高而形同剝奪對其既有之保護，值得觀察。從新型專利制度運作以觀，進步性等實質要件已非屬程序審查所應論究之範疇，對於准否專利之審查負擔已大幅降低，又修法後我國已正式引入一案二請制度，對申請人而言，其得同時申請新型及發明專利，於通過程序審查後先行取得新型專利，嗣後如經審查符合發明專利要求，可選擇享有發明專利權，如發現未能通過發明專利實質要件審查，至少仍受新型專利保護，適度避免申請人因無從判斷進步性高低、不知申請何項專利而受有損害之缺失，於修法架構下，似應容認進步性在兩者專利類型間存在模糊地帶，保留低技術程度發明得受新型專利保護之空間。
新型專利技術報告於新型專利採行程序審查制度下，扮演平衡公眾技術利用及權利人權利行使之關鍵角色，修法後更將其地位提升至專利權人排除損害賠償責任之必要條件之一，其法律上之定位究係為何，是否應肯認其為行政處分地位而准許提起救濟，歷來爭論不斷。本文以為，欲徹底解決此一爭議，宜自新型專利技術報告之根本效力著眼，即僅要求「新型專利權人進行警告及行使權利應盡相當注意」，不以提示新型專利技術報告作為權利行使之必要條件，毋寧僅係判斷專利有效性之參考證據，並藉由實際案例建立何謂相當注意之具體一致判斷標準，以避免權利人濫行主張。然上述修法建議立場顯然與新法規定走向相左，則本文以為新法規範下，新型專利技術報告之製作過程應確實賦予申請人及新型專利權人有陳述意見之機會。
修法傾向強化新型專利技術報告之效力，但專利專責機關就新型專利技術報告之作成，得僅以「申請前已見於刊物者」作為審酌之範圍，而不及於已公開使用等其他情形之審查，如因此致技術報告結果顯然有利於專利權人，恐使公眾技術利用遭受更為壓迫之限制，加深實質不確定性風險，於追求新型專利技術報告作成時效及審查機關調查負擔之同時，應思索是否將對公眾權益造成過度侵害。故宜維持現行法之運作模式，由專利專責機關就公眾已知及其調查範圍所及者作成新型專利技術報告，以免公眾技術利用遭受不當限制。
最後，本文肯定修法正式引入一案二請制度，適度提供暫時性權利保護所不具備之保護措施，補足新型與發明專利彈性運用不足之缺失，惟條文規定申請人一旦選擇發明專利者，其新型專利權「視為自始不存在」，乃透過法規嗣後決定法律上曾經存在之權利自始不存在，反而容易對於法律秩序之安定性造成破壞，滋生困擾，例如權利人已為之授權、訴訟及和解等法律行為，應作何解釋等問題，過度限制一案二請制度之功能，恐導致制度本身之立法目的受到扭曲或無從彰顯，喪失修法意義。本文認為專利權人選擇發明專利後，原新型專利權應自其取得發明專利審定公告後終止，新型專利向後失其效力，於發明專利權審定公告前，新型專利權人欲主張權利保護者，亦須受到新型專利權利行使相關規定之限制，始為妥適。

關鍵字

新型專利 ； 形式審查 ； 新型專利技術報告 ； 產業利用性 ； 新穎性 ； 進步性 ； 一案二請

並列摘要

The utility model system which formally examines applications has been enforced in Taiwan for almost ten years. Although it has been used a lot in industries of the country, this system courts serious doubts and criticizes as well from academic and practicing fields due to its own problem, especially how to distinguish high or low non-obviousness from invention patent and utility model. In recent years, the government tried to assemble various opinions from different areas, focusing on the amendent of Patent Act. Luckily, the draft amendment of Patent Act has been approved by the Executive Yuan in December 3rd, 2009, and passed by the Legislative Yuan in September 29th, 2011(The date on which this Act officially effectuates will be decided by the Executive Yuan.). This thesis is written and accomplished just during the special period of time that this Amendent of Patent Act goes from draft to formal regulation. Therefore, it not only compares the utility model law of Germany, Japan, and China, but also analyzes the appropriateness of the present and the Amendment of Patent Act.
In the first place, the Amendent of Patent Act entirely abolishes the difference of inventive step requirement between utility model and invention patent, since it is too difficult to judge the distinctions of technical level requirements between these two patent categories. Nevertheless, to observe the history of utility model in other developed countries, it should be acknowledged that utility model was built to protect those articles which hardly achieve the requirement of inventive step of invention patent. In addition, as the procedure limited to formal examination from 2004, applicants may readily acquire utility model rights. Accordingly, for the Patent Authority, it is reasonable to believe that the burden of examining eligibilities of these claims can be reduced. Moreover, the Amendent allows the same applicant to apply for an invention patent and a utility model patent for the same creation on the same date. It also prevents some troubles for applicants when they need to apply for patent rights because as they claim both utility model and invention patent, applicants can obtain at least utility model right first. After passing substantial requirement of invention patent, the patentees of utility model possess the options to choose invention patent. As a result, the Patent Act should retain the difference of inventive steps between utility model and invention patent to keep those lower technical inventions can be protected by the Act.
Secondly, the Amendent regards technical evaluation reports as one of the necessary requirements while patentees exercise their utility model rights, enhancing the function and magnitude of these reports. Since patentees of utility model rights are not allowed to plead for any remedies no matter in the original Patent Act or the Amendent if there is any fault in their reports, they should not be asked to present technical evaluation reports while exercing their rights. Namely, the report should not be regarded as an absolute and necessary requirement. In other words, warning and exercising utility model rights with due care is enough for these patentees within the utility model system. It is more than true that this thesis stands in diametric opposition with the Amendment of Patent Act. However, even in the Amendent, the thesis still suggests that applicants should be allowed, by advance notices, to make necessary statement, supplement or amendment to their applications before disadvantage decisions of technical evaluation reports being settled.
Thirdly, the Amendent strengthens the functions of technical evaluation reports, however, it examines the prior art of them only within the field of any publications which have been disclosed to public. That is to say, information which has been put into public use or others will not be examined in the process of doing the research of technical evaluation reports. Nonetheless, it goes without saying that the consquence probably increases uncertain risks to people who desire to use the specific technics, because some parts of prior art are not examined in these reports. As is well known, technical evaluation reports play a substancial role in utility model system to balance the rights of patentees and public use, therefore, the Patent Authority should better maintain the original way to examine and accompolish the reports as best as they can.
Last but not least, this thesis agrees with the position of the Amendent’s allowance that the same applicant can file an invention patent and a utility model patent application for the same creation on the same date. And after the Patent Authority determines the invention patent is acceptable, the applicant has the right to select one patent within a specified time limit. However, this thesis does not express solidarity with the provision that once the applicant selects the invention patent, the utility model patent will be considered non-existent ab initio. As a matter of fact, it is reasonable to assume that patentees might exercise their rights after the utility model rights approved, such as filing lawsuits, licensing, compromise and settlement, and so on, which is at the time much earlier than invention patents approved. Hence, how does the law interpret these existing relationships before the applicants get the rights of invention patents? Hardly can the law regard utility model rights as non-existent ab initio without causing destroys to those existent legal relationships. It is therefore quite obvious that the utility model rights should only invalidate after the applicants choose the rights of invention patents, or there will bring about many difficulties dealing with those existent relationships.

並列關鍵字

patent system ； utility model ； formal examination ； technical evaluation reports ； utility ； novelty ； inventive step ； non-obviousness

參考文獻

1.王錦寬（2006），《新型專利申請實務》，臺北：經濟部智慧財產局。

15.黃文儀（2002），《專利實務》，臺北：自刊。

17.經濟部智慧財產局（2009），《專利審查基準》，臺北：經濟部智慧財產局。

18.經濟部智慧財產局（2009），《專利法逐條釋義》，臺北：經濟部智慧財產局。

19.經濟部智慧財產局（2003），《專利法》，臺北：經濟部智慧財產局。