專利進步性要件之判決分析:由美國專利案例觀照臺灣最高法院及最高行政法院判決

Abstract

進步性（非顯而易知性）的判斷，是專利要件中最易流於主觀的。我國專利審查基準中提供了判斷專利是否係輕易完成、以及先前技術之組合對於該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者是否顯而易知之標準，並就如何判斷所請發明是否具有進步性提出判斷之步驟，例如確定發明的範圍、確定先前技術所揭露的內容、確定所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者之技術水準、確認專利與先前技術間之差異等。相較之下，美國司法在個案中揭示了各類判斷非顯而易知性之原則與測試法則，對非顯而易知性提供了判斷的標準。相關之測試包括了Graham一案所揭示之判斷法則，TSM之教示測試法則，以及KSR 案所闡示之判斷標準。如進一步比較我國專利審查基準與前揭美國司法實務上關於非顯而易知性之判斷法則，可發現兩者間具備高度之共通性。 惟本文實證分析發現，我國實務於判斷進步性時，多數僅引專利法之規定為據，即作成系爭專利是否具進步性之論斷，至於其判斷之原理原則似未予闡釋；部分判決雖交代其據以作成判斷之原理原則，然對於其涵攝之過程，並未清楚論述。例如在某些案件中，我國最高法院肯定應探究引證案是否教示系爭專利「所欲解決之問題」，以及先前技術是否提供了建議或動機而使所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者得以將其與其他先前技術加以結合，惟該等見解最終卻僅基於引證案已各別揭示系爭專利之技術特徵，進而認定專利不具進步性。然進步性要件之判斷需以「整體觀之」為原則，僅整合個別先前技術之技術特徵，並未當然構成進步性之阻卻。 本研究認為，為避免實務上對於進步性之判斷產生後見之偏差，應清楚揭示採取之判斷標準，並於其所據之標準以及實際之涵攝過程清楚論述；如參照美國司法實務所揭示之判斷標準與判決中所為之闡明，或可提供一些啟示。

Among the requirements for a patent, inventive step (non-obviousness) is the most difficult to be evaluated, as it involves subjective opinion. The Intellectual Property Office ("IPO") publishes Guidelines regarding how to determine whether a patent can be easily accomplished, and how to determine whether it is easy for persons with ordinary acknowledge to combine the prior art references. The Guidelines and other standards published by the IPO are meant as internal administrative directions, but are sometimes adopted by courts. Compared with the practice in Taiwan, the U.S. courts have provided several principles or tests for judging the obvious issue, thereby providing a consistent standard in this regard. Said principles include those disclosed in the Graham and KSR cases, and the TSM (Teaching, Suggestion or Motivation) test. The standard disclosed in the IPO's Guidelines is highly similar to that adopted by the U.S. practice. This research shows that the Taiwanese Supreme Court dismisses second-instance judgments at a higher rate than the Taiwanese Supreme Administrative Court. In addition, decisions rendered by the Taiwanese courts are normally based solely on the provision of the Patent Act, without reciting other principles or standards that are considered. Though some judgments mention the principles/rules based on which the decisions are issued, the judgments do not explain how they reach the decision based on said principles/rules. For instance, in some cases, the Supreme Court has confirmed the importance of whether the prior art references teach "problems to be solved by the patent"; however, the Supreme Court makes its conclusion based merely on the reason that the prior art references disclose the technical features of the patent. In order to avoid hindsight, the standard adopted in determining whether a patent has an inventive step should be disclosed clearly, and the reasons based on which the conclusion is made should also be clearly explained. The standards and reasons disclosed in the U.S. cases may be helpful as reference in this regard.