我國專利法修正後「設計專利」與 美國法制之比較

Abstract

我國專利法於2013年6月11日修正通過，2013年6月13日施行，此專利新法與過去不同之處有三部分，其一為「新式樣專利」用語的改變，其二為刪除美術工藝品不得取得設計專利之限制，其三為改變最鉅者，即「可專利標的之擴張」，包含納入部分設計、電腦圖像及圖形化使用者介面、衍生設計以及成組設計等。此次的修法擴大專利法對設計之保護範圍，值得贊同，惟自修法理由觀之，似有混淆「外觀」「物品」與「設計」之疑慮，此外舊法下許多設計態樣無法取得設計專利之原因並非源自「法律」限制，而是源自行政規則對法律錯誤解釋所致，透過修法導正行政規則是否妥適，尚值討論；接續，透過比較法研究的角度，檢視我國此次修法之妥適性以及未來可能發生之問題，如比較衍生設計與美國多實施例併案申請與部分連續申請案，檢視衍生設計制度是否可達成其立法之目的、開放部分設計後「潛水艇專利」發生可能性的探討等；最後輔以質性訪談，了解實務界對於此次修法的態度以提供未來修正的建議。

Patent Law was amended on June 11, 2013 and entered into force on June 13, 2013. There are three changes in the newly forced patent law, first is the change of the term “Design Patent”, second is the elimination of the statutory exclusion of granting craftwork design patent, third is the expansion of patentable objects in design, including permitting partial design of articles, computer generated icons (Icons) and graphic user interface (GUI), derivative design patent, and permitting two or more articles be filed as one design. This amendment is positive toward design for it expands the protection of patent law, but the discussion leave to remain that this amendment seems to confuse “appearance”, ”article” and “design”. In addition, many patentable objects was excluded by the Patent Examination Guideline not by patent law in the past, as a result whether is it proper to correct this mistake by amendment is still open to discussion. This thesis then review the amendment from the perspective of comparing of Taiwan patent law and US patent law to examine the appropriateness, for instance, compare the derivative design patent of Taiwan patent law to multiple embodiment and continuation-in-part application of US patent law, then to review whether derivative design patent can achieve its propose or not. Another instance is by review US patent cases to see whether “submarine patent” will show up after the partial design of articles is patentable in Taiwan. At last, by doing qualitative research, this thesis tries to know what opinions the practitioners hold for this amendment.