美國Markman判決後申請專利範圍解釋方法之實務發展與學說激盪暨我國智慧財產法院判決之實證研究

Abstract

繼美國Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.判決後，加上其後數則由聯邦巡迴上訴法院所做成的判決影響，美國實務關於申請專利範圍之解釋方法產生了很大的變化。經本文整理後，美國實務判決關於申請專利範圍解釋之主流見解係將申請專利範圍之解釋定位為純粹之法律問題，而應由法官進行判斷；而在上訴審審理標準部分，亦應適用重新審理程序（de novo review），不須尊重地方法院法官見解。惟相對於被稱做「文本論者」（hypertextualism）之美國實務多數見解，「語用論者」（pragmatic textualism）認為多數見解忽略了申請專利範圍解釋具事實認定之本質以及地方法院審理上的優越性，不但不當提高當事人提起上訴的意願、降低地方法院重要性，亦與多數見解早期確定性之初衷相悖。另外，「文本論者」為了維持解釋上的一致性與可預測性，在證據的考量上著重於內部證據之使用，而認僅有在內部證據不清楚時方可考量外部證據。對此「語用論者」認為多數說過度忽略專家證人以及PHOSITA之看法，可能增加錯誤解釋之機會，加深法院及產業界之隔閡。鑒於我國申請專利範圍解釋相關之行政規則多移植於美國案例法，惟我國法制又與美國有所不同，有深入探討其差異與影響之必要。因此，本文以我國智財法院判決為量化研究樣本，先了解我國實務關於申請專利範圍解釋證據適用之現況為何，再參以以我國智財法院現任法官為訪談對象之質性研究，深入了解我國實務申請專利範圍解釋方法之運作情形與考量因素。最後比較我國與美國因法制上不同所造成差異為何，並提出申請專利範圍解釋方法論之修正方向與建議作為本文結論。

After Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. and several post-cases made by CAFC, there were tremendous variations of the claim construction methodologies of judicial practice in the United States. According to the conclusion of this thesis, the major claim construction methodology considers that the construction of patent claims is matter of law exclusively for court and subject to de novo review without deference to the rulings of the trial court. But in comparison to the major opinion called “hypertextualism” of the U.S. judicial practice, pragmatic textualism considers that the major opinion neglectes the factual nature of judge's construction of patent claims and the institutional advantages of trial courts, then it would not only improperly release appellants' imaginations on appeal, but reduce the importance of trial courts, and be right opposite to the original intention of early certainty. Furthermore, for the preservation of consistence and predicability of claim construction, hypertextualism thinks highly of the use of intrinsic evidence, and ruled that extrinsic evidence must be restricted unless there is a facial ambiguity in the meaning of the claim. Comparatively, pragmatic textualism considers major opinion overly ignores the viewpoint of expert witnesses and PHOSITA, and then increases the probability of wrong interpretation and enlarges the gap between the court and the industrial circles. Most Taiwan’s administrative regulations are shifted from the case law of U.S., but our legal system is different from that of the United States. Therefore, it’s necessary to research the differences and effect of this. This thesis uses the judgements of the Intellectual Property Court in Taiwan as statistics specimens to find out the current situation of the used evidences of claim construction, and also invites the judges of the Intellectual Property Court in Taiwan as the objects of qualitative interviews to observe the operation situation and considered factors of our practical opinion. Lastly this thesis would make a comparison between Taiwan and the U.S., and bring up some suggestions about the interpretation of claim construction as conclusion.