聯邦巡迴上訴法院於KSR案後非顯而易知性標準之實證研究

Abstract

非顯而易知性要件在美國專利體系中有著極重要的角色，不論在申請審查或侵權談判爭訟中都是最常引用之可專利性要件。在KSR案前，論者往往直觀地批評專利品質低落之主要原因，係在於聯邦巡迴上訴法院的TSM測試降低非顯而易知性要件的判斷標準，但兩組學者之不同實證研究皆顯示，聯邦巡迴法院事實上並未降低非顯而易知性要件的判斷標準；然而，美國最高法院於KSR案中，部分推翻聯邦巡迴上訴法院的TSM測試適用方法，改以彈性適用TSM測試，因此，本文以實證研究方法深入探討聯邦巡迴上訴法院對KSR案判決之適用方法，並探討非顯而易知性的判斷標準之變動。本研究發現非顯而易知性的判斷標準已大幅度地提高，在判決理由中，著重在相較於先前技術之「可預測性」，因此對醫藥化學領域與非醫藥化學領域之間，聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決非顯而易知偏好有極顯著的差異，非醫藥化學領域之專利無一被CAFC判決認定為非顯而易知。基於上述實證結果，本文擬對公司之專利策略提出建議。

Nonobviousness requirement plays a critical role in the US patent system and is the most frequently cited patentability requirement not only in application prosecutions but in infringement negotiations and litigations. Before KSR decision, commentators usually subjectively criticize it is TSM test that should be mainly blamed for bad patents for lowering nonobviousness requirement. Two different empirical researches, however, show that CAFC did not lower its nonobviousness requirement actually. Nevertheless, in KSR decision, Supreme Court rejected rigid approach of CAFC in applying TSM test. Therefore, in this thesis, I empirically examine whether CAFC changes nonobviousness requirement after KSR decision and how CAFC applies KSR decision. The empirical analysis shows CAFC much highers nonobviousness requirement after KSR decision. CAFC mainly focuses on “predictability” of claimed invention as compared to prior arts in its decisions. Therefore, CAFC’s nonobviousness decision highly differs between medical chemical technology field, which is more unpredictable, and other fields. Specifically, none of claims in other fields is regarded as nonobvious by CAFC. Considering this much higher nonobviousness requirement after KSR, this thesis provides some suggestions about patent management strategies.