由專利法教示因果關係論專利進步性：以組合專利與類似專利為中心

Evaluation of Nonobviousness under Patent Law in terms of Teaching Causation: Focusing upon the Combination Inventions

沈宗倫(Chung-Lun Shen)

《臺大法學論叢》 42卷2期 (2013/06) Pp. 317-379

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2013.42.02.03

摘要

「功利主義」乃以確保發明者「誘因」為訴求，經由「誘因」的確保，使發明者與就現有發明內容進行改良或再創新之潛在發明者，未來樂於投入技術研發，貢獻產業進展。在功利主義的思維下，政府（代表民眾）與發明人間存在一個類似社會契約的概念，一方面透過立法，授予發明人法定排他權（exclusive rights），為其研發成果，創造市場上的經濟優勢，令發明人有機會利用排他權的權限，適度地回收研發成本，並取得合理的利潤。另一方面，以前述的法定排他權為對價，發明人有義務揭露高品質的研發成果給公眾，令公眾有機會接觸研發成果相關的資訊，更期待藉由授權或法定權利的限制，得以使公眾能致力於技術的改良與累積創新，促成專利法制的產業目標。專利的「進步性」要件，恰為高品質發明衡量的樞紐。專利進步性無可置疑的，常為各國專利法爭議的重心。向來，我國學說側重於進步性評價主體（所屬領域具有通常知識者）的研究，較少直接論及先前技術與發明間的教示因果關係。鑑於西元2007年美國專利判例法的發展（KSR 案），本文擬由教示因果關係為中心，建構我國專利進步性評價的解釋方針，不僅期待能與既有關於進步性評價主體的研究文獻，作一橫向的研究整合，更希望能貢獻研究成果，作為司法實務於相關爭議問題的判決參考。

關鍵字

進步性 ； 非顯而易見性 ； 教示因果關係 ； 先前技術 ； 申請專利範圍 ； 所屬領域具有通常知識者 ； 發明 ； 法定排他權 ； 專利審查 ； 無效抗辯

並列摘要

Under utilitarianism, it seems that a societal contract exists between the government, on behalf of the public, and the inventor. On the one side, the government granted the exclusive rights to enable the inventor to recover the R & D expenditures and obtain the profits to the reasonable extent for the sake of securing the inventor's incentives in further innovations. On the other side, subject to the price of exclusive rights, the inventor is obliged to disclose the high-quality invention to the public, and provide with opportunities for the public to access the aforesaid invention by licensing or other similar approaches. The requirement of ”an inventive step” or ”nonobviousness” for a patent under patent law serves a significant pivot to evaluate a high-quality invention. Recently, Taiwanese scholarship has been concentrated upon the studies on the issue of ”the person having ordinary skills in the art” that functions a hypothetical expert for evaluation of ”an inventive step” or ”nonobviousness”, in order to respond to the development of judicial practices. To converge with the aforesaid studies, and in view of KSR case under U.S. patent case law, this article attempts to explore the teaching causation of prior arts over the inventions in the evaluation of ”an inventive step” or ”nonobviousness”. The clarification for the teaching causation will be expected to contribute to the decision on the issue of ”an inventive step” or ”nonobviousness” under Taiwanese judicial cases in the future.

並列關鍵字

an inventive step ； nonobviousness ； teaching causation ； prior art ； claims ； the person having ordinary skills in the art ； invention ； exclusive rights ； patent prosecution ； invalidity defense

參考文獻

鄭煜騰、王偉霖（2011）。〈美國專利法上的非顯而易知性研究〉，《智慧 財產評論》，9 卷2 期，頁43-98。（Yu-Teng Zheng, & Wei-Lin Wang [2011]. A study of nonobviousness of US Patent Act. Intellectual Property Review, 9[2], 43-98.）

謝祖松（2010）。〈美國專利法上「具有通常技術者」之探討〉，《臺北大 學法學論叢》，76 期，頁43-94。（Tsu-Sung Hsieh [2010]. A study of the U.S. Patent Act's PHOSITA. Taipei University Law Review, 76, 43-94.）

Abramowicz, M., & Duffy, J. F. (2011). The inducement standard of patentability. Yale Law Journal, 120, 1590-1680 .

Burk, D. L., & Lemley, M. A. (2003). Policy levers in patent law. Virginia Law Review, 89, 1575-1696.

Goldstein, P. (2008). International intellectual property law - Cases and materials (2nd ed.). New York: Foundation Press.