標題: 專利進步性判準之實證研究 -以美國KSR案後新標準觀照台灣智財法院判決
Criteria Setting for Non-obviousness Requirement –Using U.S. Cases after KSR in contrast to Decisions of Taiwan IP Court
作者: 尤謙
Yu, Chien
劉尚志
Liu,Shang-Jyh
科技法律研究所
關鍵字: 進步性;智慧財產法院;結合理由;實證研究;KSR;Empirical Study;Obviousness
公開日期: 2015
摘要: 進步性之重要性與判斷困難度,超出其他專利要件甚多,且在學說與實務中爭議不斷。我國智財法院6年來的判決,在發明與新型專利中,有超過七成的無效原因為不具進步性。進步性乃一不易確定之法律概念,專利法22條第3項僅規定:「發明雖無前項各款所列情事,但為其所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者依申請前之先前技術所能輕易完成時,仍不得取得發明專利。」而實務上以專利審查基準認定是否為「輕易完成」,學說討論則多聚焦於「所屬技術領域中具有通常技藝之人」以及介紹外國判斷標準演變,且對於法院之認定仍有爭議者不在少數。 然而,整體檢視我國判決之實證研究,同時能夠對此抽象概念提出判準建議者相當少見,故本文以此為出發點,對智財法院成立後有關進步性之民事判決進行量化分析,並整理摘錄最高法院、最高行政法院之相關判決判決。而美國專利法長久發展,進步性(美國法中之「顯而易知性」)判準經過多次演變,有參考之價值,故本文亦針對最高法院於KSR案後之聯邦巡迴上訴法院(Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)判決,進行量化分析。 透過上述實證研究,本文發現兩國判準最大差異在於結合理由的地位不同,並以此提出我國進步性判準架構之建議。美國在KSR案後將TSM法則轉換成對結合理由的探求之一,台灣則是依循早期法條,重視功效可否預期,超過七成的判決使用之。本文以為,應透過結合理由,建構先前技術投射範圍,並以功效不可預期等作為判斷輔助,始符合進步性對系爭發明貢獻性要求之規範目的。並以台美兩國案例研析,說明此架構使用實益。
Non-obviousness is the most important and difficult requirement of patents. Since Taiwan Intellectual Property Court was founded, the ratio of patents invalidated for obviousness is higher than 70%. The Patent Act and Examination Guideline doesn’t provide clear and sufficient way to examine non-obviousness, and many cases still focus on the unexpected result. This article studies cases from U.S. and Taiwan through empirical study. The study shows that CAFC uses “reason to combine” to replace the TSM rule after KSR v. Teleflex, while Taiwan Intellectual Property Court mostly uses “patent’s results” to examine non-obviousness. This article provides a model based on “reason to combine.” The model can avoid “hindsight” and evaluate the contribution of patent, which is the main purpose of non-obviousness requirement. In order to exhibit the benefit of the model, this article compares it with the processes adopted by Taiwan and U.S through case-studies.
URI: http://140.113.39.130/cdrfb3/record/nctu/#GT070253803
http://hdl.handle.net/11536/126425
顯示於類別:畢業論文