在過去幾年,設計專利(亦稱新式樣專利)在台灣的專利實務界及產業界並未受到重視。但自從日本的LED大廠日亞化學株式會社(Nichia Inc.)先後對台灣幾家製造LED的公司提起設計專利侵權訴訟後,國內才開始真正了解設計專利對於產品市場的重要性。 在專利法領域中,由於一般人忽略設計專利的本質與發明或新型專利有一些差異性,因此在侵權判斷的原則會產生一些錯誤的觀念,特別是公司法務人員或律師在處理這些侵權訴訟時,更應該特別注意設計專利的特性。 「新穎特徵」,是影響設計專利侵權判斷的最關鍵要素,在解釋設計專利的權利保護範圍時,不能單單僅靠專利說明書的圖面及創作說明,依美國、日本及我國法院實務見解認為,尚須要判斷其中哪些設計元件是屬於先前技藝須要被排除,剩下來的設計元件才可能是「新穎特徵」。 本文將就設計專利在侵權判斷時法院所採用之判斷標準,及在比對設計專利與被控物品時可能遇到之一些法律問題,進行研究及討論,期望能對國內設計專利制度的改進能有些助益。
In the past few years, design patent has not been paid much emphasis in the field of patent practice and industry. However, since Nichia Inc., who is the biggest manufacturer of LED in Japan, filed some lawsuits regarding design patent infringement against several Taiwanese companies who manufacturing LED products, the companies in Taiwan truly understand the importance of design patent to the product market. In the field of Patent Law, most people may ignore the difference of the nature among design patent, utility patent and utility model patent, therefore, these people may have some incorrect concept on judging principle of patent infringement. Specially, when the legal people of the company or the lawyers are handling the patent infringement case, they need to pay attention to the nature of design patent. “The point of novelty”, is the key point which influences the judgement on design patent infringement. When we explain the protection scope of a design patent, we can not solely refer to the drawings in tha patent and its brief description of the drawings. According to the opinion of judical practice in U.S, Japan and Taiwan, the point of novelty will be found after we judge which design elements are prior art that need to be excluded from the the element of a design patent. This article will research and discuss the judging principle of design patent infringement in the court and some legal issue arising from the process where we compare the design patent and an alleged infringing product. I hope this article will be helpful to improve the relevant regulation of design patent in Taiwan.