專利侵權鑑定的新解藥?請求項破壞原則之研究

Abstract

在專利侵權訴訟當中，均等侵權的判定無疑是影響判決結果的重要關鍵因素之一。美國最高法院在1997年的Warner-Jenkinson案件當中，首度提出了請求項破壞的概念，惟迄目前為止，國內目前對於請求項破壞的相關研究甚為缺乏。 本研究擬透過不同時期的個案觀察，發現美國實務對於請求項破壞原則之適用態度，大致可以劃分為初始的狂潮期，歷經實務自我檢視的評估期，目前美國最新實務對於請求項破壞原則所採取的態度，是採取保守適用的態度。 反觀我國，自2010年才初次有法院在判決當中引用本原則，比對中外初次引用請求項破壞原則的時間點，兩者之間足足差距了有十三年之多。此外，本研究觀察發現，國內判決對於請求項破壞原則與三步測試法，在面對專利均等侵權判斷的問題上，具有適用時點上之差異。 本研究認為，雖然美國實務對於請求項破壞原則適用態度有趨緩的情形，但對比我國實務對於專利侵權判斷的概念上，仍然存有許多進步空間，美國實務所發展出來的請求項破壞原則概念，實值我國做為參考。

Infringement under Doctrine of Equivalents is a key factor in the patent infringement cases. The Supreme Court discloses a claim vitiation concept in the Warner-Jenkinson in 1997. Since then, more and more judges took the claim vitiation doctrine as a best solution to fast grant a summary judgment. Not until recently do the federal courts take it as a serious issue. In 2012, the federal circuit reminded district courts not to employ “vitiation” to nullify the doctrine of equivalents.

In contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court’s first creation of the claim vitiation doctrine through the referred case, the R.O.C Intellectual Property Court first used the concept until 2010. The timing cap between the U.S.A and Taiwan is about thirteen years.

Although the US courts change their attitude toward the issue of the claim vitiation doctrine as time goes by. The vary cases created by the Federal Courts actually make for excellent sources of reference while considering formulation of a claim vitiation doctrine in the R.O.C. patent litigation.