眾律國際法律事務所

Forced heirship in Spain 

Firstly, it is important to note that the Spanish Civil Code recognises a quite limited testamentary freedom compared with other countries. Therefore, people closely related to the testator shall always receive a part of the estate, which is called “la legítima”. It is also possible to disinherit a child, but only in the cases explicitly enshrined in the Civil Code (such as denying maintenance, or seriously mistreated or slandered the parent or ancestor, see Articles 853 and 756).

Spain is divided in 17 different Autonomous Communities, and some of them have their local inheritance regulations. However, the following is according to the general Spanish inheritance law contained in the Civil Code.

The beneficiary of the reserved portion is called a forced heir and, according to the Article 807, the deceased’s spouse, descendants and – if there are no descendants – the parents or other ascendants of the deceased are entitled to the reserved portion.  The spouse is not entitled to receive the property of the estate, but the usufruct. This way, the spouse has the exclusive right to use the property until his/her death.

In general terms, when the testator is survived by his children and spouse, the estate shall be divided in three shares:

1. One third of the estate must be distributed in equal parts among the testator’s children.
2. One third must go to the children and grandchildren of the deceased, but he can decide whether to distribute it in equal or non-equal parts, or only give it to some of the heirs, or just to one of them. The testator’s widow or widower has the right to receive at least a usufruct of this portion of the estate (but it is very common in testamentary dispositions to include more than this portion).
3. The last third part can be disposed freely by the testator.

The Lifting of the Corporate Veil Doctrine in Spain

The most frequently used business entities in Spain are the Limited Liability Company (Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada) and Join Stock Company (Sociedad Anónima). In both cases, the liability is generally limited to the amount of the capital stock contributed by each of them.

Nevertheless, in exceptional cases, liability shall be sought from the shareholders in order to protect the interest of other third parties. Along with the provisions of the Corporate Enterprises Act, which is the basic legal text that regulates the different legal forms of capital companies envisaged in Spain, there is an important body of case law in the field of Corporate Law. In this context, in those exceptional circumstances where liability may be sought from shareholders to protect third parties, Spanish courts apply the Anglo-Saxon doctrine of “lifting the corporate veil”, as a reaction to misconduct by the shareholders while fraudulently sheltering behind the company’s legal personality.

As is known, under Corporate Law, a corporation is specifically referred to as a legal person, subject of rights, duties and capable of being part of contracts, owning real property and having the ability to sue and be sued. Generally, when forming a company, it offers limited liability to its shareholders, like in the case of the Spanish Limited Liability and Join Stock Company, which means that a shareholder may only lose what he has contributed as shares to the entity, and nothing more, since a registered company is a separate legal entity distinct from its shareholders, and therefore, it shall be treated as any other person with its own responsibility.

The case of Salomon V. Salomon & Co (U.K. 1897) is the foundational case and precedence for this doctrine of corporate personality.

Facts of the case: Mr Aaron Salomon was a British leader merchant who had a boot manufacturing business which he decided to incorporate into a private limited company. By 1892, Mr Salomon decided to incorporate his business as a Limited Liability Company, Salomon & Co. At that time, the legal requirement for incorporation was that at least seven persons had to subscribe as shareholders, so he designated his wife, daughter and four sons as shareholders. Two of the sons became directors and Mr Salomon himself was managing director. Mr Salomon owned 20,001 (of one pound each) shares of the 20,007 (the remaining six where shared individually between his family). Mr Salomon sold his business to the new corporation for almost 39,000 pounds, of which 10,000 was a debt to him. Thus, he was the company’s principal shareholder and creditor simultaneously.

When the company went into liquidation, the liquidator argued that the debentures used by Mr Salomon as security for the debt were invalid on the grounds of fraud, and the Judge accepted this argument, ruling that since Mr Salomon had created this company solely to transfer his business, the company was in reality his agent and he as principal was liable for debts to unsecured creditors.

The Determination of Injury in the WTO Antidumping agreement

Determination of injury consists on determining whether the dumped imports have caused material injury. It shall be based on positive evidence and involve an objective examination of:

1. the volume of the dumped imports: the authorities investigating shall consider whether there has been a significant increase in dumped imports, either when it comes to absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the importing country.
2. the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like products: the investigating authorities shall consider whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports in comparison with the price of the like product in the importing country.
3. the consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products, which shall include an evaluation of all the relevant economic factors and indices, having a bearing on the state of the industry and including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments, utilization of capacity, factors affecting domestic prices, etc.

Material injury: demonstration

As mentioned above, the determination of material injury must be based on positive evidence and also involve and objective examination of dumped imports. It must be demonstrated that the dumped imports are causing injury within the meaning of the Agreement. The demonstration of a causal relationship shall be based on an examination of all relevant evidence before the authorities, who shall also examine any known factors other than the dumped imports which at the same time are injuring the domestic industry.

With respect to cases where injury is threatened by dumped imports, the application of anti-dumping measures shall be considered and decided with special care.

Definition of domestic industry

The authorities shall identify the domestic industry before addressing the injury issues. In general, in accordance to Article 4:

Antidumping International Agreements: WTO Antidumping agreement.

Although trade liberalization is the main goal of trade policy, and although antidumping rules are generally considered as restrictive to trade, some regulations still grant Governments power to impose anti-dumping measures when conditions are met. According to the Word Trade Organization (WTO), dumping is “a situation of international price discrimination, where the price of a product when sold in the importing country is less than the price of that product in the market of exporting country”. If it injures the domestic producers in the importing country, authorities may impose antidumping duties to offset the effects of the dumpling, since it is an unfair trade practice which keeps competitors out of a particular market.

International antidumping rules are provided by:

1. Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947).
2. Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade 1994 (Antidumping Agreement under the WTO), which was concluded in 1994 as a result of the Uruguay Round.

The WTO Agreement is the successor to the GATT Agreement, but provisions of Article VI are not replaced but it: Article VI is implemented and interpreted by the WTO Agreement. Since 1947 GATT, the rules of international trading system have authorized countries to establish national antidumping statutes and implement antidumping trade restrictions. Under the agreement, a national government shall undertake an investigation and consider substantial economic evidence before it can impose definitive antidumping measures that restricts imports. The investigating authority is instructed to consider different factors when making the decision, but the most important among them are whether two important legal criteria have been met: that a domestic industry suffers material injury, and that this injury is the result of dumped imports.

Taiwan filed an application for a GATT membership status in January 1990. In 1995, when the WTO was established, the application was transformed into the accession application for the WTO membership. Taiwan became the 144^th member of the WTO in 2002.

Basic principles of the Antidumping agreement

The Agreement ensures that WTO members will not apply antidumping measures arbitrarily. Antidumping measures are unilateral remedies that the government of the importing country may apply after a throughout investigation has determined that the product is, in fact, being dumped, and that sales of the dumped product are causing material injury to a domestic industry that produces a like product.

WTO members can impose antidumping measures only if, after investigation in accordance with the Agreement, a determination meets the following requirements:

　　二、實質要件

　　依專利法第30條第1項前段的規定：「申請人基於其在中華民國先申請之發明或新型專利案再提出專利申請者，得就先申請案申請時說明書、申請專利範圍或圖式所載之發明或新型，主張優先權。」

　　其中，先申請案與後申請案之實質內容需符合為相同發明之規範，其優先權之主張才能成立。

　　關於「相同發明」的判所方式，我國專利審查基準第二篇第五章第1.4.1節「相同發明」中規定：

　　「主張優先權時，『相同發明』之判斷應以後申請案申請專利範圍中所載之發明是否已揭露於優先權基礎案之說明書、申請專利範圍或圖式為基礎，而不單以優先權基礎案之申請專利範圍為準，惟不得以優先權基礎案所載之先前技術及已聲明排除之內容為判斷的基礎。

　　後申請案申請專利範圍中所載之發明與優先權基礎案所揭露之發明之間若屬下列二種情事之一者，應判所為『相同發明』：

　　a.兩發明之記載形式及實質內容完全相同。

　　b.兩發明之差異僅在於文字的記載形式，或差異僅在於部分相對應之技術特徵，係該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者基於優先權基礎案所揭露之發明形式上明確記載的技術內容，即能直接且無歧異得知其實質上單獨隱含或整體隱含申請專利之發明中相對應的技術特徵，而不會得知其他技術特徵者。」

　　我國專利法第30條規定：

　　「申請人基於其在中華民國先申請之發明或新型專利案再提出專利之申請者，得就先申請案申請時說明書、申請專利範圍或圖式所載之發明或新型，主張優先權。但有下列情事之一，不得主張之：

　　一、自先申請案申請日後已逾十二個月者。

　　二、先申請案中所記載之發明或新型已經依第二十八條或本條規定主張優先權者。

　　三、先申請案係第三十四條第一項或第一百零七條第一項規定之分割案，或第一百零八條第一項規定之改請案。

　　四、先申請案為發明，已經公告或不予專利審定確定者。

　　五、先申請案為新型，已經公告或不予專利處份確定者。

　　六、先申請案已經撤回或不受理者。

　　在完成解釋申請專利範圍(Claim construction)之後，便可進一步判斷侵權物品是否侵犯專利。首先會比對申請專利範圍與侵權物品，若侵權物品中存在申請專利範圍所描述的各個元件時，便可說侵權物品相較於專利案存在字義侵權(Literal infringement)。

　　若侵權物品相較於申請專利範圍不存在字義侵權，則會進一步判斷兩者之間是否存在均等論(Doctrine of Equivalents)下的字義侵權。一般來說判斷兩個元件是否是等效元件，通常會透過功能(Function)、手段(Way)及結果(Result)來判斷，若兩個元件具有相同的功能、採用相同的手段及產生相同的結果，便可適用均等論。

　　在討論均等論時，通常還需要一併考慮禁反言(Prosecution history estoppel)，所謂禁反言是指申請人在提出專利申請的過程中，為了使得專利申請案與引證案之間有所差異，並有利於專利申請案的核准，對請求項內容所提出的修正，或於答辯理由書中具體聲明放棄的權利範圍。

　　Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.是有關於均等論的重要判例，Hilton Davis是專利權人，就改善純化的製程提出專利申請，在答辯的過程中，由於引證文件提及了操作在PH值約為9.0的相關製程，為此申請人依據引證文件的內容，在請求項中增加了PH值為6.0至9.0的限制，以使得修正後的專利範圍與引證文件有所區隔。

　　Warner-Jenkinson是被告，其使用了Hilton Davis申請之專利的純化製程，唯一的差異在於Warner-Jenkinson是操作在PH值為5.0的純化製程。專利權人認為請求項所述的PH值為6.0至9.0應可均等為PH值為5.0，並認為被告侵害其專利權。而被告則主張申請人在申請過程中，為了專利的核准，在專利範圍中增加了PH值為6.0至9.0的限制，因此主張依據禁反言的規定，專利範圍不應該被均等至PH值為5.0。

　　陪審團在綜合兩造的意見之後，認為Warner-Jenkinson侵害Hilton Davis的專利權。並認為專利權人雖然為了專利的核准，於專利範圍中增加PH值為6.0至9.0的限制。但依據審查時的引證資料來看，專利權人的修正主要是為了排除了PH值的上限，而非為了排除PH值的下限，因此專利範圍所述的PH值為6.0可均等為PH值5.0，並涵蓋被告產品的PH值為5.0的內容。

專利專案經理 蕭錫裕

　　所謂非專利申請人請准之專利包括，受雇人就職務上所完成之發明，自行提出專利申請並獲准專利，然而依專利法第7條的規定，職務上之發明的申請權應歸屬雇用人；及未經發明人、新型創作人、設計人之讓與，而以自己之名義提出申請。

　　針對上述的情形，雇用人或真正的發明人得於該專利案公告後提起舉發。可以提出非專利申請權人請准之專利的舉發人，僅限於的利害關係人，其中「利害關係人」，最典型的例子是真正具有專利申請權之人或共有專利申請權之人。此外，專利民事侵權訴訟之被告亦可視為利害關係人，並得對系爭專利為非專利申請權人提起舉發，應認其具利害關係。

　　專利法第35條具體規定了，真正的專利申請權人可於專利案公告後二年內，提出「發明專利權人為非發明專利申請權人」的舉發，當舉發撤銷確定後二個月內，真正的專利申請權人可以就相同發明申請專利，此時提出的發明專利申請案將會以該經撤銷確定之發明專利案之申請日為申請日。

　　具體來說非專利申請權人請准之專利，經專利專責機關審查舉發成立撤銷專利權確定後，該專利權理應自始不存在。但為了顧及真正申請權人的權益，如不給予申請專利的機會並不公平，因此專利法第35條規定了真正申請權人得於舉發撤銷確定後2個月內，備具申請書提出申請專利，並得援用非真正申請權人提出之申請案之申請日，以避免因該專利喪失新穎性致無法維護其權利。

　　專利法第35條規定的2個月之內提出，主要是為了避免法律關係處於不確定狀態，而規定真正權利人儘快提出申請。若超過2個月雖仍可以提出申請，但不能援用非真正申請權人提出申請案之申請日作為申請日，但如此一來提出申請的專利將可能會面臨喪失新穎性的問題。

　　另外超過專利公告後2年，仍然可以就非專利申請權人請准之專利提起舉發，但此時只能達到撤銷專利權之目的，並不能進一步以真正申請權人之資格再行申請專利，縱然申請亦應以其申請案已經公開，不具新穎性予以核駁。

Notion of ‘consumer’ in EU Law

The notion of consumer is a key concept delimiting the application of consumer protection laws. Despite being phrased in different ways, the majority of definitions of ‘consumer’ found in the EU legislation include a common core, for example:

　　延續前篇的討論，對於以外文本提出申請的外文本，專利法第44條、第110條及第133條分別針對發明、新型及設計專利規定：

　　「說明書、申請專利範圍及圖式(設計專利為說明書及圖式)，依第25/106/125條第3項規定，以外文本提出申請者，其外文本不得修正。

　　依第25/106/125條第3項規定補正之中文本，不得超出申請時外文本所揭露之範圍。

　　前項之中文本，其誤譯之訂正，不得超出申請時外文本所揭露之範圍(本項僅為第44條規定)。」

　　其中明文規定外文本不得修正，且規定補正之中文本不得出超申請時外文本所揭露之範圍。

　　由於外文本一經提出後，即無法進行任何更動，且中文本不能超出外文本所揭露的範圍，因此提交外文本時，應確實檢查是否有缺漏字、缺漏頁、缺漏圖或印刷不清楚的情形。外文本若有任何缺漏，都可能導致補正的中文本無法進行增補或訂正的情形發生。

　　另外，專利法施行細則第22條第3項規定：「說明書、申請專利範圍及摘要以外文本提出者，其補正之中文本，應提供正確完整之翻譯。」(由於針對新型及設計專利之規定，其精神與發明之規定相同，形式上或略有差異，以下本文只列舉針對發明之條文，不在另行標注新型與設計專利之條文)

　　此外，專利審查基準第二篇第八章第2.2節「中文本」規定：「本章所指之中文本係指申請人先行提出外文說明書、申請專利範圍及必要之圖式，並於指定期間內補正之中文譯本。該中文譯本應對照外文本正確完整翻譯，且不得超出外文本所揭露之範圍。」