眾律國際法律事務所

　　一、前言

　　按專利法的規定，申請人於申請專利時，應遵守一發明一申請之原則，就每一發明各別申請。然而，二個以上發明，屬於一個廣義發明概念者，得於一申請案中提出申請。若一申請專利之發明，實質上為二個以上之發明時，經專利專責機關通知，或者申請人主動申請，以將二個以上之發明進行分割申請。

　　二、分割申請的情況

　　(1). 申請專利範圍中包含有不符合單一性的二個以上發明時。

　　(2). 申請人將符合於單一性的二個以上發明，分割為二個以上申請案。

　　(3). 申請專利範圍中之一或多個發明，經審查不具新穎性或進步性，致使其他發明不具單一性時。

　　(4). 申請人欲將原先在說明書所揭露之發明，新增至申請專利範圍之中，而此新增的申請專利範圍與原申請專利範圍之間存在單一性問題時。

　　三、申請分割之期限的規定

　　一、前言

    專利分為發明、新型及設計等三種類型，發明及新型主要保護利用自然法則之技術思想之創作，而設計主要保護物品外觀透過視覺訴求之創作。專利申請時，申請人係可以自行決定欲申請的類型。若申請人提出專利申請後，發現所申請之專利類型不符合實際需求，或不符合專利法所規定之發明標的，例如：將方法申請為新型專利，則，專利申請人即可以將原專利申請案（亦簡稱為原申請案）改為其他類型的專利申請案（亦簡稱為改請案），並且原申請案之申請日將作為改請案之申請日。

　　二、改請的態樣

　　(1).發明改請新型；(2).發明改請設計；(3).新型改請發明；

　　(4).新型改請設計；(5).設計改請新型。

　　至於設計改請為發明，並非專利法所允許的態樣。

　　三、改請案之申請日

　　延續前篇之討論，仍請參照下圖之主要時間軸：

　　三、主張國內優先權之被動時限

　　在先前數篇的討論中，不論是法定期間或是額外的時間限制，都是申請人可預期而需主動進行關注的問題。以下將就申請人無法預期而被動發生的情形進行討論。

　　關於國內優先權之主張，只要於後申請案提出申請時，符合法規上的形式要求、時限要求以及符合聲明的要件，其國內優先權之主張即可被接受。但主張國內優先權之實質要件是否符合要求，即後申請案是否與先申請案為相同發明，則需待後申請案進行實體審查時才能加以釐清。

　　延續前篇之討論，仍請參照下圖之主要時間軸：

　　二、主張國內優先權之額外時限

　　在先前數篇的討論中，已分別就主張國內優先權應注意的各項法定期限進行討論與分析，以下將就法定期限以外的額外時限進行討論。

　　專利審查基準第一篇第七章第2.2節「國內優先權之先申請案」中，程序審查應注意之事項規定：「(7)被據以主張國內優先權之先申請案於申請日後15個月視為撤回前，雖仍繫屬於專利專責機關，然實質上已為後申請案所取代，且不再續行審查程序，惟基於保護先申請案之利益，在不影響作為優先權先申請案適法性之前提下，於後申請案審定前，得辦理分割申請或變更代理人、變更地址等變更事項(台北高等行政法院95年訴字第1539號判決參照)。」

　　延續前篇之討論，仍請參照下圖之主要時間軸：

　　2. 後申請案方面

　　就後申請案之狀態而言，需注意的時間尚包含有專利法第30條第3項規定先申請案申請日後逾15個月後，不得撤回優先權之主張；專利法第30條第4項規定後申請案在先申請案申請日後15個月以內撤回者，視為同時撤回國內優先權之主張。

　　延續前篇之討論，並請參照下圖之主要時間軸：

　　首先，後申請案需在先申請案申請日後12個月以內提出申請，並聲明主張先申請案之國內優先權。先申請案經後申請案主張國內優先權後，於其申請日後15個月視為撤回。

　　其中日期的精確算法，於專利審查基準第一篇第七章第2.3節「主張國內優先權之期間」規定：「主張國內優先權之期間為12個月，自先申請案申請日之次日起算至後申請案之申請日當日。一申請案中主張二以上之先申請案優先權時，其優先權期間之起算日為最早之優先權日之次日。」

　　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。

　　專利侵權之民事救濟方式，依其性質可分為二大類型，一者為「損害賠償」類型；另一者是「除去、防止侵害」類型。參酌民法第767條的精神：1.已經發生損害者，可請求損害賠償。2.對於現在之侵害，可請求排除。3.但有可能發生者，為防範於未然，得請求防止之。為此專利法第96條具體規定了：1.發明專利權人對於侵害其專利權者，得請求除去之。2.有侵害之虞者，得請求防止之。3.發明專利權人對於因故意或過失侵害其專利權者，得請求損害賠償。

　　具體來說專利權人可要求去除侵害其專利權的行為，如專利法第58條所規定，排除他人製造、為販賣之要約、販賣、使用或為上述目的而進口該物之行為。為有效遏阻侵害智慧財產權之情事，被認定為侵害智慧財產權之物品，以及主要用於製造侵害物品之原料與器具，專利權人皆有權力請求銷毀或為其他必要之處置。司法機關會具體考量侵害行為的嚴重性，並判斷是否應下令銷毀。

　　此外依據專利法第97條的規定，損害賠償是認定侵權行為成立並造成權利人損害時，侵權行為人應負擔的責任。當侵權人因故意或過失侵權，則可依據1.民法第216條之規定，但專利權人不能提供證據方法以證明其損害時，則可就其實施專利權通常所可獲得之利益，減除受害後實施同一專利權所得之利益，以其差額為所受損害。2.依侵害人因侵害行為所得之利益。3.依授權實施該發明專利所得收取之合理權利金為基礎計算損害。專利權人依個案事實，自行選定其中一種方法計算其損害較為有利。

　　此外當侵權人為故意侵權，則專利權人可進一步提出請求，而法院得因專利權人之請求，依侵害情節，酌定損害額以上之賠償，但不得超過已證明損害額之三倍。專利法第96還規定了專利請求權消滅的時效，主要依據民法第197條的規定，若專利權人自得知其專利權遭受損害時起，兩年內要行使其權利，若兩年內不行使得會導致專利請求權消滅。此外自有侵權行為時起，專利權人超過十年未得知侵權行為並提出專利請求權時，亦會導致專利請求權消滅。另外專利侵權行為通常是連續的，因此上述兩年內要行使專利請求權的時間點，會因為連續的侵權行為而分別獨立發生。

專利專案經理 蕭錫裕

關鍵字：1.損害賠償；2.故意侵權；3.專利請求權

參考資料

A new EU General Data Protection Regulation is agreed

A new EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has been agreed. It takes the form of a Regulation, which will replace the current Directive 95/45/EC and will be directly applicable in all the EU Member States with no need of implementing national legislation. Its provisions will be directly applicable two years after the date of release (April 14^th 2016). The process of agreeing the GDPR has so far been a long a complex one, but finally after several years of drafting and discussions it is now officially EU law.

Some of the most important provisions of the GDPR are the following:

1. Broader scope. In addition to applying to data controllers and processors established in the EU, he GDPR will also apply to those that are established outside the EU whose processing activities relate to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EU or to the monitoring of EU individuals’ behaviour. 
2. Revised definition of personal data. Under the GDPR, information is treated as personal data whenever individuals can be identified by online identifiers, location data or identification numbers. This way, location data, IP addresses and online identifiers will constitute personal data in most cases as this can be used to identify individuals, specially when combined with unique identifiers.
3. Accountability obligations. Companies will have to implement appropriate privacy policies and robust security measures, perform data protection impact assessments in certain cases and appoint a data protection officer under some specific conditions. On the other hand, the GDPR places onerous accountability obligations on data controllers to demonstrate compliance, such as (i) maintain certain documentation, (ii) conduct a data protection impact assessment for more risky processing or (iii) implement data protection by design and by default.
4. New obligations. GDPR imposes additional obligations on data processors, controllers and joint controllers. On the other hand, direct obligations will be imposed on data processors for the security of personal data.
5. Data breach notification. Data controllers will be required to notify any data breach to the supervisory authority within 72h of discovery, unless they can show the breach is unlikely to pose any risk to individuals.
6. One stop shop. For companies active in various EU countries, the GDPR will allow them to have a central point of enforcement through the one-stop mechanism. This way, the supervisory authority of the main establishment will act as the lead supervisory authority, supervising all the processing activities throughout the EU.
7. Higher standard for consent. Under GDPR, consent must be unambiguous and communicated by a statement or clear affirmative action. Consent must be freely given, specific and informed or showed either by a statement or a clear affirmative which signifies agreement to the processing. It can be withdrawn and it must be explicit for sensitive data. The new Regulation also provides specific protection in the context of children’s personal data by strengthening the validity conditions of children’s consent.
8. Sanctions. Supervisory authorities will be given significantly more powers to enforce compliance with the GDPR. They will have the power to impose fines for some infringements up to 4% of annual worldwide turnover.
9. International transfers. The GDPR maintains the general prohibition of data transfers to countries outside the EU that do not provide an adequate level of data protection, and stricter conditions will apply for obtaining an “adequate” status.
10. Rights of individuals. The GDPR will expand the rights of individuals. For example, individuals can require the erasure of their personal data without undue delay by the data controller in certain situations (the right to be forgotten). On the other hand, it will strengthen the protection of individuals against possible negative effects of profiling by providing them with the right not be subject to automated decision making, which produces legal effects concerning the individual or significantly affects the individual.

References:

Position of the Council at first reading

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_5419_2016_INIT&from=EN

EU Council press release:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/04/08-data-protection-reform-first-reading/

Application for customs action at the EU border

In the last few decades, counterfeiting and piracy have become widespread, affecting almost every country in the world and a wide range of industries. Regulation 608/2013 concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and repealing Council Regulation provides prevention to the import and export of counterfeit goods, allowing customs authorities to suspend the introduction of goods into de EU if they are suspected of infringing and IP right.  In addition, the national trademark acts of the EU states set out stipulations regarding border seizures.

The Regulation provides two types of custom actions in case of suspected counterfeit:

1. ex-officio actions which only occur in exceptional cases (3% of EU-wide customs actions)
2. actions based on earlier filed application for action.

In both cases the competent customs authorities will detain the goods and notify the IP holder or his representative, and confirm the counterfeit. If the infringement is confirmed, the Customs will not release the goods.

The application may be submitted only with respect to intellectual property rights based on Union law and producing effects throughout the Union, which means that only Community IP rights owners can file a Union application. The application shall be submitted with the competent customs office in a Member State requesting action pursuant to the Regulation by the customs authorities of that State, and will be taken in the state where the application is submitted and also in other states referred to in the application.

The application must contain information on the IP rights to be enforced, as well as listing the technical and administrative contact persons. Also, it must contain specific and technical data on the authentic goods. The applicant must also assume liability for all costs resulting from the detention (destruction, storage) and also in case the alleged infringement proves to be unfounded.

Once the application is successfully filed and granted, the custom authorities will proceed to the seizure of any suspected infringing goods in the relevant territory and will notify the right holder accordingly, who must confirm the likeliness of infringement. Afterwards, the custom authorities have the power to destroy the infringing goods at the expense of the right holder, provided that the owner or the declarant of the seized goods does not oppose to the destruction within ten working days from the notification of the seizure.

On the other hand, in case the counterparty objects to the destruction, the right holder must negotiate a settlement agreement and enforce its IP rights according to the applicable national law.