論申請專利範圍明確性要件之判斷-從美國最高法院Nautilus v. Biosig案出發

Abstract

我國現行專利法於第二十六條第二項規定，申請專利範圍各請求項應以明確之方式記載，通稱為明確性要件。同時，分別按同法第四十六條第一項及第七十一條第一項第一款規定，請求項若未以明確之方式記載，審查中專利案件將不予專利，而已獲准專利得因舉發而被撤銷。然而，該規定中並未明文界定何謂「明確」，故未給出明確性要件的判斷標準。 本文藉由實證調查發現，我國在專利申請案件審查以及專利訴訟案件裁判的實務上，對於明確性要件的判斷，未有一致性標準。因而，本文從探討美國最高法院2014年於Nautilus案所確立的申請專利範圍明確性判斷標準出發，釐清明確性要件的規範本質及目的，進而提出請求項是否明確的判斷應回歸其規範本質而為之，併考量所屬技術領域之通常知識水準等因素。同時，本文亦探討第二十六條規定其他要件的規範本質及目的，比較各要件於審查上的適用順序，提出申請專利範圍於第二十六條適用上的審查流程。 本文認為，當專利的發明所屬技術領域之通常知識者經由專利說明書及申請檔案歷史，盡合理努力理解申請專利範圍後，仍無法具體及清楚地知悉申請專利範圍之界限達合理確定的程度時，該專利即構成明確性要件的違反而為無效。

Taiwan Patent Act stipulates that each claim shall be disclosed in a clear manner in Paragraph 2 of Article 26, which is also known as the requirement of definiteness. In violation of this requirement, a patent application under examination shall be rendered a decision of rejection while a granted patent shall be revoked due to an invalidation action according to Paragraph 1 of Article 46 and Article 71, respectively. However, the Patent Act does not well-define the “clear” term to give the standard of determination upon definiteness of a patent claim. An empirical research in this article shows that the determination upon definiteness of a patent claim of an under-examined patent application is not consistent with that of an adjudicated patent litigation case. This article therefore aims to clarify the essential and purpose of the requirement of definiteness by starting from study of the definiteness determination standard held in the Nautilus case by Supreme Court of the United States in year 2014. It is proposed that whether a patent claim is indefinite should be determined in view of the essential and purpose and several factors including the level of ordinary skill in the art. The essential and purpose of other requirements in Article 26 are also discussed, and a patent claim examining process taking into consideration of different application order of these requirements is proposed. This article concludes that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention even after reasonable efforts at claim comprehension are taken.