論美國專利法之申請過程禁反言─以Festo及Honeywell案例之禁反言為例─

所謂均等論（Doctrine Of Equivalents）原則，指的是在判斷專利侵權與否的法律原則下，依專利法之規定，專利權的範圍應以專利說明書之Claim（權利請求項）記載之內容為限。被控產品（Accused Device）或方法必須完全符合專利說明書之Claim所述之內容，即應符合全要件原則（All-Elements Rule），才能被視為侵權。依照均等論，「產品或過程非文義侵害專利的明示條款中的權利請求項，卻可能發現侵權，若被控產品或過程之元件和發明專利之所請元件之間具有（均等性）。」申請過程禁反言原則之目的，為了防止專利持有人可依均等論對專利標的物重新取回已放棄之專利權。將在申請過程的任一階段或任何文件上，已明白表示放棄之權利，事後在專利權取得後或在專利訴訟中，再行取得或重為主張已放棄部分。即專利權人對權利請求項的解釋應當前後一致，是專利侵權訴訟中重要原則之一。申請過程禁反言某些範圍上限制適用均等論，最高法院和聯邦巡迴上訴法院引用Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. 案例設置粗略的輪廓線，此二法律原則（均等論與禁反言）如何相互作用。2002最高法院在Festo VIII 535 U.S. 722的所釋出最硬（最實際忠懇的）一句話，建立了三個理由以反駁推定禁反言，由於專利於申請過程期間，以「可專利性的實質關係」為理由提出修正。這些是：1）均等元件（equivalent）是不可預見的，2）修正與均等元件只不過是些微性關係，或3）或有其他一些原因建議專利權人應無法合理期待清楚描述均等物。聯邦巡迴上訴法院責成建立這些例外適用情況，在何種程度上，in Festo X中最後談到，最高法院判決「替代品（alternative）是可預見的，若已被揭露者為發明領域中相關之先前技術。換言之，若已被知曉為發明領域中者，替代品是可預見的，亦反映在修正前之權利請求項範圍內。專利應充分揭露、及公示之功能（Public Notice），不得因Claim修正後而將其權利範圍擴張。本研究即以Festo及Honeywell論美國專利法下之申請過程禁反言。

關鍵字

所屬該技術領域中具有通常知識者（PHOSITA）；限縮修正；可預見性；均等論（DOE）；全要件原則；些微性關係；合理的期待；申請過程禁反言（PHE）；彈性阻卻；全面阻卻

並列摘要

Abstract The theory of the doctrine of equivalents is that an applicant through the doctrine of equivalents should only be able to protect the scope of his invention, Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Assocs., 904 F.2d 677, 684 (Fed. Cir. 1990), not to expand the protectable scope of the claimed invention to cover a new and unclaimed invention. The doctrine of equivalents, and the extent to which prosecution history estoppel limits application of the doctrine. The Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit used the Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. case to set rough contours of how these two legal doctrines interact. The Supreme Court's last word, in Festo VIII 535 U.S. 722,（2002） established three grounds for rebutting a presumption of estoppel for amendments submitted during patent prosecution for reasons "substantially related to patentability." These are: 1) that the equivalent was unforeseeable, 2) that the amendment had only a tangential relation to the equivalent, or 3) that there was "some other reason" that suggested the patentee would not have reasonably been expected to describe the equivalent. The Federal Circuit, tasked with establishing the extent to which these exceptions apply, last spoke in Festo X, where the Court held that "an alternative is foreseeable if it is disclosed in the pertinent prior art in the field of the invention. In other words, an alternative is foreseeable if it is known in the field of the invention as reflected in the claim scope before amendment." Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 493 F.3d 1368, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The disclosure of patentable invention should be sufficiently, because the claim scope would not extend after amendment. This study is named “The Prosecution History Estoppel Under U. S. Patent Law” which is in the cases of Festo and Honeywell.

並列關鍵字

Complete Bar or Absolute Bar ； Tangential Relation ； The Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art（PHOSITA）； Reasonable Expectations ； Doctrine of Equivalents（DOE）； Prosecution History Estoppel（PHE）； Narrowing Amendments ； Flexible Bar ； All-Elements Rule ； Foreseeability

參考文獻

3. 盛慰先，專業人員在系統整合過程中抗拒行為之探討—製造業PDM與CAD，ERP系統整合之個案研究，中原大學碩士論文(2002)

3. 王鵬翔，法律、融貫性與權威，中央研究院法律學研究所籌備處，政治與社會哲學評論期刊，第24期，（2008年3月）。

4. 沈宗倫，專利侵害均等論之過去、現在及未來—我國法應何去何從？，東吳法律學報(TSSCI)第二十卷第二期，（2008,10）。

2. http://www.runride.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=133&Itemid=40

2. 歐陽承新，歐債問題與歐元前途，中華經濟研究院國際經濟所，（第1708期）. http://www.cier.edu.tw/public/Data/07221434271.pdf

國際替代計量

論美國專利法之申請過程禁反言─以Festo及Honeywell案例之禁反言為例─

全文下載

主題瀏覽