手段功能用語的類型判斷及其明確性之研究

本文藉由分析美國專利法制上對於手段功能用語類型判斷及其明確性要件的相關規範及實務見解，比較並探討我國手段功能用語法制及實務運作上產生之問題。經研究後發現，我國手段功能用語之相關規範自美國引進時並未準確掌握其本質，導致在法制上不僅有其缺陷，且實務運作上更產生解釋上的矛盾，更有造成手段功能用語相關規範的空洞化以及錯誤解釋申請專利範圍而危害公眾利益的情形。因此，本文認為我國手段功能用語應規範於專利法之法律位階且條文內容應重新修正及補充。其次，手段功能用語之對價應清楚闡明。再者，智慧財產局於審查專利申請案時，應主動且對手段功能用語採實質認定之審查方式。據此，藉由上述手段功能用語相關規範的重新修正及補充，以力求衡平專利權人及公眾二者間之利益。

關鍵字

專利；手段功能用語；明確性；申請專利範圍

並列摘要

This study compares and discusses the issues of legal system and practices in means-plus-function limitation of Taiwan patent system by analyzing the identification and definiteness for means-plus-function limitation of United States patent system based on the regulations and recent practice. It reveals that the nature of the regulations of means-plus-function limitation of the United States patent system may have not been fully understood when introduced into Taiwan patent system, thus resulting deficiencies in the legal system, contradictory interpretations in recent practices, missing regulations of means-plus-function limitation, incorrect interpretations of the claims, and eventually jeopardize the public interests. Therefore, the regulations of means-plus-function limitation of Taiwan patent system should be modified and supplemented in Patent Act. In addition, the quid pro quo of means-plus-function limitation should be clarified, and Taiwan Intellectual Property Office should automatically and substantially examine the means-plus-function limitation in the patent application. After the regulations of means-plus-function limitation could be modified and supplemented, the interests between patentee and general public can be balanced.

並列關鍵字

Patent ； Means-plus-function ； definiteness ； claim

參考文獻

6.張仁平（2013）。〈發明專利審查基準之修正與審查實務變革─修訂篇〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，171期，頁5-85。

11.游雅晴（2009）。〈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〉，《華人前瞻研究》，5卷2期，頁143-153。

7.蘇仁濬（2011）。《專利法揭露要求之研究》，臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文。

1.1981年修正之專利法施行細則第10條

2.1987年修正之專利法施行細則第10條

國際替代計量

手段功能用語的類型判斷及其明確性之研究

全文下載

主題瀏覽