專利侵害判斷與創新迴避設計ppt课件

1、專利损害判斷及案例分析宋皇志講授大綱o專利侵權根本學理o我國專利侵權訴訟現狀o專利侵權判斷準則美國案例研讨o申請專利範圍的解釋o待鑑定物之解析o有無侵權之判斷o迴避設計原理及實務專利侵權根本學理o專利權的本質o本公司的產品獲有專利權，能否必然获得製造權與販賣權？oif 違反公共次序或仁慈風俗oif 他人享有更基礎之專利權o本公司的產品獲有專利權，能否必可免於他人之訴訟威脅？專利侵權根本學理續o專利權的本質o專利權不是實施權，而是一種排他權o專利排他權：排除他人未經專利權人赞同而為以下行為之權利o製造o販賣o為販賣之要約o运用o為上述目的而進口專利侵權根本學理續o觀念釐清o貴公司的產品獲有專利權

2、，能否必可免於他人之訴訟威脅？o貴公司的產品是自行研發的，絕非抄襲仿冒的，能否必可免於他人之訴訟威脅？o對於貴公司之產品，您根本不知道別人獲有專利權，專利權人告貴公司告得贏嗎？o在現行專利法制下，貴公司要推出產品，該如何防止被告？我國專利侵權訴訟現狀介紹o就我國一切地方法院之判決進行檢索o檢索關鍵字：專利and(损害or侵權or損害賠償)o判決期間：1999.8.12005.9.30o共檢索出893件判決o就上述判決一一閱覽，挑出真正關於專利侵權訴訟之判決，共169件。我國專利侵權訴訟現狀續原告國籍88-93年核准國籍別本國59%外國41%我國專利侵權訴訟現狀續被告國籍我國專利侵權訴訟現狀續專

3、利類型之比較能够缘由：新型專利多為國人所申請获得新型專利直至92.3.31皆有刑事責任 圖二B 88-93年所核准之專利別 發明 46% 新型 40% 新式樣 14% 圖二A 專利類型 發明 7.7% 新型 82.3% 新式樣 10% 我國專利侵權訴訟現狀續勝訴方原告23%被告77%勝訴方-智財專庭被告74%原告26%勝訴方我國專利侵權訴訟現狀續被控行為類型我國專利侵權訴訟現狀續法官侵權判斷依據專利侵權判斷準則o專利侵權判斷之步驟申請專利範圍之解釋(Claim Construction)待鑑定物之解析有無侵權之判斷Claim ConstructionMarkman HearingoMarkma

4、n v. Westview Instrument, 517 U.S. 370 (1996)1. The inventory control and reporting system, comprising; a data input device ; a data processor ; a dot matrix printer ; and, at least one optical scanner , whereby said system can detect and localize spurious additions to inventory as well as spurious

5、deletions therefrom.U.S. Pat. Re33,054Claim ConstructionMarkman HearingoMarkman v. Westview Instrument, 517 U.S. 370 (1996)oThe interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of lawoThe construction of a patent is exclusively within the province of the court.oThe Federal Circuit applies the de novo st

6、andard of reviewClaim Construction ProcedureoVitronics v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576 (1996)oIntrinsic EvidencesoThe Words of the claims themselvesoSpecification of the patentoProsecution History of the patentoExtrinsic EvidenceoDictionaryoExpert Testimony申請專利範圍之解釋我國法o專利權範圍以說明書所載之申請專利範圍為準o於解釋申請專利範圍時，

7、得審酌o發明說明o圖式待鑑定物之解析o學理上單純，但實務上很重要，很關鍵o物品專利o一定要以實體進行鑑定，假设僅用照片為之，通常為法院所不採o可運用民事訴訟法之證據保全程序o方法專利o專利權人舉證困難o妥善運用專利方法直接製成之物的推定效能有無侵權之判斷文義损害？逆均等？YesNo均等损害？原告主張均等論被告主張阻卻均等論事由攻擊攻擊抗辯抗辯文義损害(Literal Infringement)oAll Element RuleoDetermine whether the accused product performs each of the claim limitations identic

8、ally.oExample:o1. 一種腳踏車，其包含：o 一車體，其【略】；o 一前車輪，其【略】；o 一後車輪，其【略】；o 一傳動系統，其係以鍊條【略】；及o 一車鈴，用以警示行人。o假设待鑑定物不含車鈴，不構成侵權o假设待鑑定物之傳動系統係以皮帶為之，不構成文義损害但有能够構成均等损害均等损害(Doctrine of Equivalents)oThe patentee has the burden of proving infringement by a preponderance of the evidenceoGraver Tank v. Linde Air Products, 3

9、39 U.S. 605 (1950)oIt allows a finding of infringement when the accused product and claimed invention: (not expansion of the claim)operform substantially the same function;oin substantially the same way;oto yield substantially the same result.被告可运用之抗辯oProving Non-InfringementoProving Unenforceabilit

10、yoInequitable ConductoPatent MisuseoLaches and Equitable EstoppeloAntitrust CounterclaimsoProving InvalidityoOvercome presumption of Validity o (clear and convincing evidence)Proving Non-InfringementoProsecution History EstoppeloDedicated to the Public (disclosed in Specification but not claimed)oPr

11、acticing the Prior ArtoPrior Users RightsProsecution History EstoppeloFesto v. Shoketsu Kinzoku, 122 S.Ct. 1831 (2002)oThough prosecution history can bar DOE, its reach requires an examination of the subject matter surrendered by the narrowing amendment.oA narrowing amendment made to satisfy any req

12、uirement of the Patent Act may give rise to an estoppel.Dedicated to the PublicoJohnson & Johnston v. R.E. Serv, 285 F.3d 1046 (2002)1. A component for use in manufacturing articles such as printed circuit boards comprising: a laminate constructed of a sheet of copper foil which, in a finished print

13、ed circuit board, constitutes a functional element and a sheet of aluminum which one a band U.S. Pat. 5,153,050 Dedicated to the PublicoJohnson & Johnston v. R.E. Serv, 285 F.3d 1046 (2002)oHaving disclosed w/o claiming the steel substrates, Johnston cannot now invoke the doctrine of equivalents to

14、extend its aluminum limitation to encompass steel.oJohnston can not assert DOE to cover the disclosed but unclaimed steel substrate.Specification: While aluminum is currently the preferred material for the substrate, other metals, such as stainless steel or nickel alloys, may be used. In some instan

15、ces, such as in laminating plastic credit cards, polypropelene can be used. Practicing the Prior ArtoWilson Sporting Goods v. David Geoffrey, 904 F.2d 677 (1990)oA patentee cannot use DOE to cover which he can not lawfully have obtained from the PTO by literal claims.oRule: whether the hypothetical claim could be allowed by the PTO over th