眾律國際法律事務所

我國專利法第26條規定，專利說明書應包含之部分為發明名稱、發明摘要、發明說明、申請專利範圍及圖示，生技專利自然也不例外，各項分述如下：

一、發明名稱

發明名稱的用語要簡潔明確，並且以能表現該發明之專利範圍為宜。但不得含有商標、代號等非技術用語，例如冠以研發團隊名稱或自行加入編號等，皆非妥適之發明名稱。

二、發明摘要

用以描述欲解決的技術問題、解決問題的技術手段及發明主要用途，不能含有宣傳之文字，字數亦不得超過250字。但要注意發明摘要並不能用來解釋專利範圍，無論是申請審查階段或進入訴訟，專利範圍的認定仍要以申請專利範圍(claim)為準。

三、發明說明

此部分功能為技術的揭露，撰寫時應注意申請專利範圍之所有請求項，於發明說明都要有相對應的支持，保險起見甚至可以逐字將請求項載入發明說明，並加以描述。

發明說明應包含之內容，依專利法實施細則第17條規定為：

(一)發明所屬的技術領域：說明所在的技術領域，可參照國際專利分類表被指定的最低階分類撰寫。若該發明不屬於任何一技術領域，則可標明為新技術領域。

(二)先前技術：此部分若用生技研究的「術語」來比擬，大概相當於期刊文章中的「引言」(Introduction)部分，必須描述相關問題之先前研究成果。通常內容為引述已公開之專利或公開發表之期刊論文。

Transfer of ownership of a European Union trademarks

A European Union trademark (EUTR) may be transferred, which means that the ownership of the property of rights of the trademark or the application changes. This way, either the trademark or the application may be transferred from the current proprietor a new one. Transfer may refer to some (partial transfer) or all of the goods or services.

Registration

The transfer shall be entered in the Register and published upon request of one of the parties. Registering a transfer is not a condition for its validity, but if not registered by the Office, the entitlement to act remains with the original proprietor. According to article 17.8, all documents which require notification to the proprietor of the trademark shall be addressed to the person registered as a proprietor.  As a consequence, the new proprietor will not receive notifications from the Office, in particular, during inter partes proceedings or the notification of the renewal of the mark.

The transfer involves to aspects: (i) the validity of the transfer between the parties and (ii) the impact of a transfer on proceedings before the Office. This impact will only triggered after the Registration of the transfer.

The following are the different kinds of transfers:

‘The Panama Papers’ trademark application field

Trademark applications have been field for ‘Panama Papers’, which refers to the term used by the media to describe the massive leak of confidential documents from the Mossack Fonseca law firm in Panama, which reveals and identify international politicians, business leaders and celebrities involved in webs of suspicious financial transactions.

The applications have been filed at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and at the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA). The name of the EUIPO applicant for the term ‘Panama Papers’ is currently not available, but it is already known that the application at the DPMA, for the term “The Panama Papers”, was applied by a company from Munich called Casaaam.

Reini Putscher is the owner of the digital business called Casaam, and also founder of an advertising and creative agency called ‘Die Schöne Agentur’. The marketer from Munich has plans on writing a movie and selling merchandise related to the leak.

The trademark was filed on April 4^th, just a day after the first news reports were public and applied in relation to goods and services in classes 9 (electronic publications, software, photographic, cinematographic…), 40 (treatment of materials) and 41(entertainment, publications, education). Casaaam has also applied for the same mark at the EUIPO. On the other hand, the other EUIPO application, whose applicant is still unknown, covers classes 16 (paper, photographs, printed matter), 38 (telecommunications), 40 and 41.

International arbitration

The expansion and globalisation of cross-border business has led to increasingly high and complex commercial relationships between business, investors and states. Inevitably, some of those relationships break down and parties need to consider how to resolve their disputes. Apart from attempting to resolve the matter by themselves through negotiations or any different form of alternative dispute resolution method, such as mediation, the two options international parties have generally are (i) litigation before the courts of a specific country, or (ii) international arbitration.

Before the inception and development of arbitration, litigation was the only formal of resolving disputes when two or more interests are in disagreement. Arbitration is al alternative dispute resolution conducted before an impartial tribunal, which emanates from the agreement of the parties, but which is regulated and enforced by the state.

Arbitration can be, either entered into when the dispute arises, or it can also be included as a clause in a commercial agreement (a contract) stating that, in case of disagreement, matters arising between the parties will be referred to arbitration.

“International” arbitration refers to the resolution of cross-border transaction disputes. According to the United National Commission on International Trade Law, an arbitration is international if:

1. The parties to an agreement to conciliate have, at the time of the conclusion of that agreement, their places of business in different States; or
2. The State in which parties have their places of business is different from either: i) the State in which substantial part of the obligations of the commercial relationship is to be performed; or (ii) the State with which the subject matter of the dispute is most closely connected.

The main characteristics of arbitration, which differentiates it from court proceedings are:

• Party Autonomy. Plays the most fundamental and predominant principle in international arbitration. This particular relevance of party autonomy becomes obvious when considering the fact that any arbitration requires the consent of the parties. In addition, parties are able to choose such important elements as the applicable law, language and venue of the arbitration.
• The freedom to choose the arbitrator(s) and the laws governing the arbitration. It is also a direct consequence from the party of autonomy principle.  Nevertheless, the parties’ freedom to choose their arbitrators is not without limits: the arbitrations must be independent and impartial by all means, which makes arbitration a neutral procedure.
• Confidentiality of the proceedings. Apart from certain fields of law in which individual interests are considered higher than public interests, state courts proceedings are usually held in public due to transparency. In contrast to that, many arbitration proceedings are kept confidential. This confidentiality can protect the parties’ reputation in certain cases and prevents sensitive information to be disclosed to the public or competitors.
• No appellate level. It is one of the most striking features in contrast to state court proceedings. However, there are a few rules of arbitral institutions who provide appellate level (the American Arbitration Association or the Israeli Institute of Commercial Arbitration), but these are exceptional cases.

登記制設計專利RCD(Registered Community Design)可向歐洲商標局OHIM(Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market)或是向世界智慧財產組織WIPO(World Intellectual Property Organization)提出，但向WIPO申請時須特別指定歐盟。不論是向OHIM還是WIPO提出登記制設計專利申請，最後都會由OHIM進行形式審查

申請登記制設計專利須要準備以下的資料(註[1])：

1.RCD設計案申請書。

2.申請人姓名、地址以及國籍。

3.設計圖式(註[1],註[2])：

(a)圖式可以為圖片或照片，彩色或黑白皆可，設計標的與背景須可清楚分辨。然而在同一設計中，不允許提供部分彩色以及部分黑白的圖式，例如3個色彩圖式以及4個黑白圖式是不被允許的。

歐盟的設計專利可以分為登記制設計專利(RCD, registered Community design)與非登記制設計專利(UCD, unregistered Community design)兩種。不論是為產品申請登記制還是非登記制設計專利，在產品的製造、行銷、販賣以及進出口上都可以獲得保護。

登記制與非登記制設計專利的保護標的相同，可分為以下三類([註1])：

1.設計(design)：產品的全部或部分外觀特徵，特別是產品本身或其裝飾的線條、輪廓、顏色、形狀、紋理及/或材質。

2.產品(product)：任何工業或手工藝製品，包括欲組合到複合產品上的其他部分、包裝、式樣、圖形記號以及印刷字樣，但不包括電腦程式軟體。

3.複合產品(complex product)：指由複數個元件所組成的產品，且這些元件允許被拆解以及再組裝成該產品。

除此之外，保護標的必須具備新穎性(Novelty)及/或獨特性(individual character) (註[2])。新穎性是指該設計必須是從未見過的，在申請日、公開日或優先權日之前，不可有任何與該設計相同的設計曾被公開過。獨特性是指產品給人的整體印象必須不同於曾被公開過的設計或產品。

　　申請人在收到限制性選擇的審查意見時，只能依據限制性選擇的內容，從中選擇一個發明內容。之後審查委員將會依據申請人選擇的發明內容續行審查，而申請人在收到下一次的審查意見時，亦只能針對選擇的發明內容提出答辯或限縮請求項的範圍。

　　在實務上若申請案包括較多的圖式或請求項時，審查委員通常會發出限制性選擇的審查意見，如此一來將可以限制申請人對請求項所提出修正，並可簡化申請案的審查程序。

　　具體來說，若審查意見指出請求項1-5及6-10為不同發明，而申請人選擇請求項1-5續行審查。則申請人在收到請求項1-5相較於引證1而言不具進步性的審查意見時，即便認為未選擇的請求項6-10中存在引證1未揭露的內容，亦不能將請求項6-10的技術特徵合併在請求項1中，而只能將請求項6-10的內容提出分案申請。

　　此外申請人在選擇其中一個發明內容續行審查的同時，通常亦會提出異議(election with traverse)，以保留之後的答辯空間，並使得其他未選擇的發明內容存在回復的可能性。

　　然而要特別注意的是，若申請人於異議中詳細指出未選擇的發明內容與選擇的發明內容之間的差異很小，因此未選擇的發明內容與選擇的發明內容應為同一發明等說法，則很有可能會影響未選擇之發明內容的新穎性或進步性。

　　具體來說，若申請人選擇請求項1-5續行審查，並於選擇的同時提出異議，並於其中指出請求項6-10相較於請求項1-5的差異極小，因此請求項1-5及請求項6-10應屬同一發明等內容。若之後的審查意見中，引用引證1對請求項1-5提出新穎性或進步性的核駁，則申請人雖然可就未選擇的請求項6-10提出分案申請，但審查委員很可能同樣會引用引證1對分案申請的請求項6-10提出新穎性或進步性的核駁，並於審查意見中指出申請人於異議時，已明確指出請求項6-10與請求項1-5的差異極小，因此請求項6-10相較於引證1而言亦不具進步性。

　　綜上所述，在收到限制性選擇後，雖然會在選擇的同時提出異議，但申請人應特別注意異議的內容，是否詳細指出未選擇及選擇的發明內容差異極小等相關的描述，以避免影響未選擇之發明內容的新穎性或進步性。

　　美國專利法第121條(35 U.S.C.§121)為有關於分割申請案的規定，其中具體說明了，若在一件申請案中包括兩個或兩個以上獨立的發明內容時，審查委員會發出限制性選擇(Restriction Requirement)，並要求申請人從中選擇其中一個發明內容。至於其他未選擇的發明內容，則可分割申請。

　　審查委員在發出限制性選擇時，可能會明確指出那些請求項屬於同一發明內容，例如請求項1-5及請求項6-10分別為兩個不同的發明。申請人在答辯時只要針對審查意見，從中選擇其中一組請求項續行審查，例如請求項1-5。

　　但目前更常見的限制性選擇，則是審查委員會依據圖式來區分不同的發明內容，例如圖1-3及圖4-6分別為兩個不同的發明。在答辯時則需要依據選擇的圖式，選擇對應的請求項內容，例如選擇圖1-3及對應的請求項1-5。

　　一般來說，申請人在收到限制性選擇時通常會覺得有點困惑，並會詢問是否可以答辯，以及是否一定要選擇其中一個發明內容等問題。依據MPEP 818的規定，申請人在收到限制性選擇之後，即便對限制性選擇的內容有疑慮，仍應依據審查意見選擇其中一個群組，並可於選擇的同時提出異議(election with traverse)或相關說明。若申請人未針對審查意見選擇其中一個發明內容，則有可能會被視為沒有針對審查意見進行回復，並很有可能在下次的審查意見中直接收到案終局審查意見(final OA)。

　　此外只有在申請人有提出異議時，才可保留日後在提出答辯的空間。若申請人於選擇其中一個發明內容時，沒有一併提出異議(without traverse)，則其它未被選擇的發明內容日後便只能提出分割申請。

　　此外審查委員在發出限制性選擇的審查意見時，亦可能會指出申請案存在一個generic claim。若申請人選擇該generic claim續行審查，則其他被generic claim所包括之未被選擇的請求項，在generic claim具可專利性的前提之下，便可於同一申請案中核准。

　　具體來說，若限制性選擇指出claim 1-3、4-6及7-9分屬不同發明，且claim 1為claim 4-6的generic claim。若申請人選擇claim 1-3續行審查，則在claim 1具核准的前景下，claim 4-6便可於同一申請案中核准。為此若申請案存在一個generic claim，則通常會選擇generic claim續行審查，以利於回復其他未被選擇之請求項的可能。

　　台灣專利法第43條規定了，專利專責機關經依前項規定通知後，認有必要時，得為最後通知；其經最後通知者，申請專利範圍之修正，申請人僅得於通知之期間內，就下列事項為之：一、請求項之刪除。二、申請專利範圍之減縮。三、誤記之訂正。四、不明瞭記載之釋明。

　　依據上述專利法第43條的規定，在收到最後通知後，將會大幅限制了申請人對申請案所能提出的修正。為此專利審查基準亦進一步定義了可以發出最後通知的時機，以避免影響申請人修正專利說明書或權利範圍的權利。

　　專利審查基準第二篇第七章的2.1規定了，當申請人依先前審查意見通知提出修正後，雖已克服先前審查意見通知指出之全部不准專利事由，但因修正而產生新的不准專利事由時，若新的不准專利事由係歸責於申請人者，即得發給最後通知。具體來說：

　　(1)申請案已進行檢索並通知不符新穎性、進步性，而申請人修正或增加新的請求項，以克服全部不准專利事由。但經續行檢索後，發現其他引證文件而使得修正或新增的請求項仍不符新穎性、進步性之情事者。
　　(2)申請案經修正後雖已克服審查意見通知指出之全部不准專利事由，但因修正而導入新事項，而產生不符記載要件、不具發明單一性之情事者。
　　(3)先前已針對部分請求項檢索，認定該部分請求項不具新穎性、進步性等要件，其他請求項因申請專利範圍不具發明單一性而未檢索。申請人修正後刪除已檢索之請求項，經續行檢索其他請求項，另發現引證文件而認定不具新穎性、進步性等要件。例如：以引證文件認定請求項1 至3 不具新穎性，請求項4 至6 因申請專利範圍不具發明單一性而未檢索，如後續申請人刪除請求項1 至3，保留請求項4 至6，經續行檢索該等請求項，發現其他引證文件認定不具新穎性、進步性。
　　(4)先前因全部請求項均屬「無須或無法進行檢索」，而未檢索即發給審查意見通知，申請人修正後雖克服先前通知之全部不准專利事由，修正後之請求項經檢索發現不符新穎性、進步性等要件之情事者。

　　綜上所述，最後通知會對申請案的修正造成相當大的影響，因此目前在實務上很少會收到最後通知的審查意見。此外申請人在收到最後通知時，亦應特別注意審查委員發出最後通知時，是否符合專利法施行細則的相關規定。

　　此外若申請案於初審階段收到最後通知，而申請人提出申復或修正仍無法克服最後通知之不准專利事由，而作成核駁審定時。若申請人提出再審查時，因申請案係於初審階段發給最後通知後予以審定，因此再審查所提申請專利範圍之修正，仍應受初審發給最後通知後之修正限制。

Arbitration and Mediation

Arbitration and mediation are two forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where “alternative” means alternative to court litigation. In this context, ADR is commonly defined as any process or procedure for resolving a dispute other than adjudication by a judge in a statutory court. They are not the only kind of dispute resolution processes, but they are the most common, specially is arbitration, which is more and more used in many jurisdictions around the world, specially is in an international context. Mediation, on the other hand, is not so practised.

Both arbitration and mediation have the same goal in mind, which is a fair resolution of the issues in question, and they are both private dispute resolution procedures based on party agreement, but they differ in a number of important aspects. As a general idea, under mediation, the parties communicate with a neutral third party who makes a non-binding recommendation, meanwhile under arbitration, both parties commit to conform to the third party recommendation.

Voluntary processes

Most arbitrations take place pursuant to an agreement between the parties. However, it is not voluntary in the sense that once the parties have validly agreed to submit a dispute to arbitration, the process from that point becomes compulsory. Thereafter the determination of all issues, procedural or otherwise, is in the hands of the arbitrator.

On the other hand, mediation is a voluntary process which depends on the continuing cooperation of both parties, who can unilaterally withdraw from the procedure at anytime. Some jurisdictions order compulsory mediation, but no result can be imposed on them without their mutual consent. In this fundamental respect, mediation differs from arbitration.