頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 非顯而易知之非顯而易知性--美國最高法院KSR案判決評析=The Non-obviously Non-obviousness: Reexamining the Non-obviousness under KSR v. Teleflex |
---|---|
作 者 | 胡心蘭; | 書刊名 | 興大法學 |
卷 期 | 4 2008.11[民97.11] |
頁 次 | 頁193-238 |
分類號 | 440.652 |
關鍵詞 | 可專利性; 非顯而易知性; TSM測試; 專利審查; Teleflex v. KSR; Patentability; Non-obviousness; TSM test; Graham standard; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 專利權的授予在於獎勵研究創新,同時鼓勵申請人將智慧結晶、技術、秘訣公開,以供社會大眾推動企業與科技發展,是以賦予專利權人於特定期間內,排除他人未經其同意實施其專利權。而此一獨佔權利之賦予即須有其應具備之條件,其中,非顯而易知性係指申請專利之發明創作不得為一般習知該項技術之人可推知之技術,是為消極要件。針對可專利性之審理,美國最高法院與專司專利訴訟案件之美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院(Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit;CAFC)在非顯而易知性的判斷標準上多有歧異是一件公開的秘密。CAFC 成立二十多年以來在判斷非顯而易知性時並未遵從美國最高法院在 Graham v. John Deere Co.案中所訂立之四項判斷基準,而改以 CAFC 自行發展出之一套稱之為「教示、聯想或動機」(Teaching, Suggestion or Motivation, TSM)的測試,試圖釐清何謂非顯而易知。然而此一測試之應用已在美國實務界以及學界遭受強烈批評,連代表美國政府之司法部(Department of Justice)與專利商標局(USPTO)亦同聲譴責,因此在二○○三年發生之 KSR v. Teleflex 一案成為美國最高法院重申其於 Graham 案所建立之判斷原則之契機。 本文將就美國最高法院所創設的 Graham 判斷模式,以及 CAFC 所自行演繹出之 TSM 測試的發展歷程與內容做一詳實之分析。接著,針對沸騰一時之 KSR 案,從地院之判決,CAFC 駁回地院之判決,到美國最高法院再駁回 CAFC 之判決等三審之判決內容及其爭點予以闡明,並試析該案對爾後之美國專利制度所可能產生之影響。由於 USPTO 的角色與建言對此案之判決結果有直接的影響,在判決出爐後,其就非顯而易知性之判斷所頒布之審查基準即具有相當之重要性,故本文亦會對此一審查基準稍作介紹。最後,由於我國之專利法乃至於整個專利制度或多或少均受到美國專利制度的影響,KSR 案之判決結果對我國會造成什麼樣的衝擊亦係一值得關心的議題。 |
英文摘要 | The purpose of granting a Patent right is to reward innovation and development of technology and useful art. And this granted patent monopoly means to trade for the publications of the result, technique, and know-how of the patented invention, hence benefits the general public and the whole society for further improvements in science and technology. However, to enjoy the rewarded monopoly, there are some requirements must to be possessed by the claimed invention, and the non-obviousness is one of such requirements. Non-obviousness asks whether a claim is more than a predictable variation over prior art to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. If a claimed invention is obvious then it is unpatentable. As to the valuation of a claimed invention's non-obviousness, the standards possessed by the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit(CAFC)are quite different. Since its establishment at 1982, the CAFC adopts the test of "Teaching, Suggestion or Motivation(the TSM test)"to evaluate the non-obviousness of a claimed invention for more than twenty years. This TSM test has been criticized as not only straying from the "Graham standard" set by the Supreme Court at Graham v. John Deere Co. in 1966, but also distorting the legislative policy under the section 103 of the 1951 Patent Amendment Act. As a result, when KSR along with numerous influential amicus curiae petition the Supreme Court for reviewing the CAFC's decision in Teleflex v. KSR, the Court saw a great opportunity to clarify the non-obviousness requirement once again. In this article, therefore, the author will first introduce the backgrounds and the contents of the "Graham standard" set by the Supreme Court, and the TSM test developed by the CAFC separately. The author also will explain the drawbacks of rigidly applying the TSM test onto non-obviousness valuations. Further, this author will explore the opinions hold by three tiers of court on the issues of non-obviousness in the KSR v. Teleflex, and then try to lay out the possible impacts brought by the instructions the Supreme Court gave in the KSR opinion to the whole Patent Law system of U.S., so as to the Patent Law system of Taiwan. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。