論申請專利範圍解釋—以Phillips v. AWH Corp.案與其後案件發展為中心

Abstract

本文以美國聯邦法院判決為研究範圍，採用案例分析法以及實證研究法，觀察從Phillips案前、Phillips案到Phillips案後兩年間，對於解釋申請專利範圍兩大問題：(1)因解釋申請專利範圍原則矛盾而分歧的解釋申請專利範圍方法論；以及(2)解釋申請專利範圍問題到底是事實問題、法律問題、還是介乎其間的問題性質不明而引發的上訴審理標準疑義的演進過程。

第一章為緒論；第二章為簡介Phillips一案前兩大問題的起源；第三章深入探討Phillips本案之中對於分歧的解釋申請專利範圍方法論之見解；第四章為實證研究的結果，樣本為Phillips案後兩年間的巡迴上訴法院案件，觀察其在方法論以及決定性證據來源指標的適用以及指標隨著時間、法官、上下級審轉換的變化情形，討論Phillips後案件如何理解Phillips案中的決定，並就實證結果提出本文認為相對較適的方法論，最後給予寫作專利與訴訟時在解釋申請專利範圍主張上注意事項；第五章為討論Phillips一案未竟的議題—解釋申請專利範圍上訴審理標準，延續著實證研究結果、理解最高法院見解、以及其他類似專利議題中的做法，探討目前重新審理的上訴審理標準並非妥適之舉；最後於第六章提出結論。

本文結論認為，在解釋申請專利範圍的方法上，應採以申請專利範圍通常涵義為優先的方法佐以偏向內部證據的決定性證據來源修正補充最後的解釋，為相對較佳、較透明的解釋過程，但是整體來說，基於每個專利不同的技術與揭露，並無一個「絕對最佳」的方法論。而在上訴審理標準的檢討，本文認為應該正視事實認定在解釋申請專利範圍過程中的重要性，基於並不存在最適方法論以及「絕對正確」申請專利範圍，對地院作出的事實認定，應採明顯錯誤的上訴審理標準。

This Article focuses on case development of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by historical analysis and empirical study. Observe the evolution of two main problems in claim construction: (1) divergence of approaches of claim construction; and (2) the difficulty of fact/law distinction of claim construction cast doubts of the standard of reviews.

Chapter 1 is introduction. Chapter 2 points out the stem of two main problems. Chapter 3 reviews Phillips v. AWH Corp. which addresses the disparity problem of approaches of claim construction. Chapter 4 shows the result of empirical study which includes post-Phillips cases in 2 years. This Article designs two kinds of codes. One is the code of methodology of claim construction and the other is the code of imperative evidence source of claim construction. The measurement data can demonstrate the impact of Phillips on post-Phillips cases. By evaluating the data entirely, this Article provides relatively better methodology of claim construction and some tips for patent drafters and parties in patent litigations. Chapter 5 discusses the missing issue in Phillips—the standard of review of claim construction from the result of empirical study, the Supreme Court precedent, and the standard of review of other patent law issues. Finally, Chapter 6 provides conclusions of this Article. In generally, this Article concludes that claim ordinary meaning-based method plus intrinsic imperative evidence sources would be a better and more transparent approach of claim construction but the flexibility of approaches is still needed in construing claim scope based on different technologies and disclosures. Since no the best methodology and “absolutely right” claim interpretation exist and the fact findings is significantly important, the Federal Circuit should put eyes on the fact findings in claim construction and apply the clear erroneous standard of view on it.