眾律國際法律事務所

大陸專利法中的假冒專利 / 專利工程師林孟萱

我國發明專利侵害鑑定之方法（下）專利工程師  /  陳詠容

Ways to examine invention patent infringements in Taiwan (3)

Patent Engineer Yung-Zhong Chen

專利範圍雖無歷史禁反言之適用，惟如被控侵權對象與先前技術相同，或依先前技術所能輕易完成者，為避免專利權人藉由均等論擴張後之範圍，涵蓋與先前技術相同或依先前技術所能輕易完成之部分，造成公眾利益受有損害。被控侵權對象經判斷與某一先前技術相同，或為一先前技術與專利申請時之所屬技術領域中的通常知識之簡單組合，或為二以上先前技術之簡單組合，則得依先前技術阻卻主張不適用均等論。Despite there is no doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, the accused party must not ensnare the prior art, nor to have its prior art to be easily accomplished. This is to avoid the scope of claims expansion beyond their literal language to the true scope of inventor’s contribution and to damage its public interests. In circumstances where an accused device performs the same function recited in the element, and the accused device embodies the corresponding structure, material, or acts described by the specification or an equivalent thereof, if any of the above elements apply, then a claim cannot be broadened. The range of equivalents permitted under the doctrine of equivalents must not ensnare its prior art. The fundamental purpose of all evaluations must prevent the patentee from obtaining, under the doctrine of equivalents, coverage which the patentee could not have obtained by literal claims.

而發明專利權範圍，以申請專利範圍為準；於解釋申請專利範圍時，得審酌說明書及圖式，此乃《專利法》第58條第4項所明文。說明書或圖式中有揭露，但並未記載於專利之請求項的技術手段，非屬專利法所賦予專利權的保護範圍內，專利權人不得以均等論重為主張或復奪(recapture)其原可於專利請求項中申請，卻不申請之技術手段。貢獻原則的意旨便在於，如說明書或圖式中有揭露但未於請求項主張之技術，應被視為貢獻給社會大眾，專利權人不得藉由均等論而重為主張其原可申請卻不申請之技術手段。Patent Law Article 58, Paragraph 4 expressly indicates that the scope of patent right shall be determined based on the claim(s) set forth in the specification of the invention. The descriptions and drawings of the invention may be used as reference when interpreting the scope of claims in the patent application. In terms of the scope of contents which were disclosed in the original specification or drawing while filing the patent application, for claims that are not written in its description, won’t be covered by Patent Law. Such claim cannot be broadened so far as to read on the prior art and a patentee cannot recapture what was given up during the prosecution of the patent. The fundamental purpose is to prevent the patentee to cover its claim which could not have obtained from the Patent and Trademark Office by literal claim to preserve the best interest of public to prevent patentee to expand or alter the scope of patent claims.

誠如國內學術文章已指出，美國最高法院在肯認均等論保護專利範圍的，認為此種不確定性乃是為了保護創新所必要付出的代價的原則之下，惟趨勢上，仍呈現出一股限縮均等論適用之浪潮。主要係均等論的適用會使得申請範圍具有不確定性，難以清楚劃定專利權範圍的界限，容易導致競爭者產生難以預期的訟爭，或者後進者在投入產品生產製照後，對於侵權與否，存有高度的不確定性，造成司法資源有浪費之疑慮。此種趨勢，亦促使我國於「2015年專利侵害要點草案」中，擬納入申請歷史禁反言、先前技術阻卻及貢獻原則等限制均等論之相關規範。According to Taiwan’s scholarly articles indicates that, the US Supreme Court adopted the doctrine of equivalents analysis, despite its uncertainties, it is necessary to preserve its invention by all means. However there appears to have a trend of narrowing the literal scope of the patent claim. The purpose of such is to avoid uncertainties, circumstances where it’s difficult to draw clear lines for the scope of patent claims that would mislead its competitors for unpredictable litigations. To prevent waste of its judicial resources, it is necessary to prevent uncertainties for the later not knowing whether there are any infringements for its manufactured products. Due to this, the “key points on invention patent infringement draft 2015” inherited the prosecution history estoppel and the prior art principles into the rules of doctrine of equivalents.

參考資料：References

專利侵害鑑定要點，經濟部智慧財產局，2004年。Intellectual Property Office (2004) Key points on invention patent infringement.

專利侵害鑑定要點草案， 經濟部智慧財產局，2015年。Intellectual Property Office (2015) Key points on invention patent infringement draft. 

我國發明專利侵害鑑定之方法（中）專利工程師  /  陳詠容

Ways to examine invention patent infringements in Taiwan (2)

Patent Engineer Yung-Zhong Chen

相對於均等論，專利範圍雖符合文義讀取，惟倘其技術手段與被控侵權對象所使用之技術原理，係以實質不同的手段，達到相同或類似的功能或結果，即使被控對象落入專利之文義範圍內，應判斷其適用逆均等論，不構成侵權。然而，逆均等論所欲避免的「文義相同但實質不同」的目的，近年來，在美國專利實務上，大多在鑑定流程的第一步，解釋申請專利範圍時便已解決，逆均等論僅是在判決中附帶的論述，似無直接適用逆均等論而認定不侵權的案例。配合實務現況，我國「2015年要點草案」擬刪除逆均等論之相關規範。

According to the doctrine of equivalents theory, despite the scope of clams is in line with the context, to determine whether such difference is “insubstantial” or not, it is important to figure out the difference between the feature in the accused device and the limitation literally recited in the patent claim. The patent claim may be found to be “insubstantial” only if its technical means and the accused parties perform substantially the different function in a substantial different way with substantial different results. Nevertheless, the doctrine of equivalents analysis is applied to individual claim limitations, not to the invention as a whole. In the United States, there only needs one kind of identity test to come to its conclusion for which the doctrine of equivalent is only considered as claimed of invention which described its purpose that does not directly allow a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement. In Taiwan, the “Key point draft 2015” deleted everything against the doctrine of equivalents theory.

有鑑於文字之敘述有其侷限性，無法合理期待專利權人於申請專利時能將所有無法預見但實質相同的技術特徵寫入請求項中，因此，專利權範圍不應僅侷限於文義範圍，而應包含均等範圍，此乃均等論之意旨。然而，均論一方面藉由擴張專利範圍的方式，保全專利權人之權益，另一方面，卻造成公眾無法由專利公告的字面得知專利權的範圍，使得專利侵權的判斷充滿不確定性，甚至提高訴訟與社會成本。在這樣的情況之下，均等論實有必要被適當的限縮。相較於2004年的「專利侵害鑑定要點」，我國智財局於「2015年專利侵害鑑定要點草案」納入均等論之限制事項。倘專利符合申請歷史禁反言、先前技術阻卻及貢獻原則，則被控侵權對象應視為未落入專利範圍內。

Due to the fact that when interpreting patent claims, there is strict literalism, which cannot reasonably expect patentee to write down all the claims which cannot foreseen when lodging its patent application. Therefore the scope of claim should not be read literally for which a patent literally “reads on” an accused infringer’s device or process rather than looking at its intention. Nevertheless, the expansion of claim coverage is to protect its patentees’ right, would cause the general public not knowing the actual scope of its patent claims in result of uncertainties. Whether there are any patent infringements or not would give rise to its litigation and social costs. Therefore, the doctrines of equivalents would need to narrow the literal scope of the patent claim. By comparing the “key points on invention patent infringement in 2004”, the” key points on invention patent infringement draft 2015”, the expansion of claim coverage permitted the doctrine of equivalents, however the patentee is limited by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel and the prior art.  

呈上，專利權人於專利申請過程為符合專利申請要件或為維護專利，而所為之修正、更正或申復，導致最後限縮專利權範圍，則專利權人便無法依據均等論主張其於申請專利時無法預見但實質相同的技術特徵。換而言之，該修正、更正或申復將導致放棄的部分，專利權人不得再藉由均等論而重為主張其所放棄之申請標的，此即所謂的歷史禁反言。From the above analysis, for the patentee to fulfill its patent application requirement so as to maintain its patent, it is necessary to amend, correct and response in result of narrowing the scope of claims, patentee cannot claim for something which cannot foresee base on the doctrine of equivalents theory. In other words, patentee who has filed a patent application and then to amend, correct and response its claim by narrowing its amendments to accommodate the patent law, would be precluded from invoking the doctrine of equivalents to broaden the scope of their claims to cover subject matter ceded by the amendments.

參考資料：References

我國商業組織新制度介紹

The New Framework of Business Associations in Taiwan

眾律國際法律事務所製作 By Zoomlaw Attorneys-at-Law

1. 閉鎖型公司特色介紹

1. Introducing the Characteristics of Close Company in Taiwan

我國立法院於2015年6月15日三讀通過公司法，最主要修正為增修了第13節的閉鎖性股份有限公司，其特色如下所述：

On 15 ^th June, 2015, the amendment to Taiwan Company Act is to establish a new category of closely-held company limited by shares as follows:

閉鎖型公司七大特色
Close Company’s 7 characteristics

閉鎖型公司特色介紹

Introduction the Characteristics of Close Company in Taiwan

眾律國際法律事務所製作 By Zoomlaw Attorneys-at-Law

我國立法院於2015年6月15日三讀通過公司法，最主要修正為增修了第13節的閉鎖性股份有限公司，其特色如下所述：

 On 15th June, 2015, the amendment to Taiwan Company Act is to establish a new category of closely-held company limited by shares as follows:

 I.   閉鎖型公司七大特色 Close Company’s 7 characteristics

出資型態的多樣化diversified investment patterns;

可發行複數特別股possibility to issuing multiple special shares

股東會開會方式及表決權行使大幅簡化to simplify the ways to attend shareholders’ meeting and its voting right;

食品安全衛生管理法之刑罰規定（下） / 律師 吳英志  總編輯法學博士范國華主持律師

肆、不肖業者不當利得之追討措施

為有效解決不肖業者受有行政罰及刑罰制裁後，仍可保有不法所得之不公情形，爰依食品安全衛生管理法第49-1條及第49-2條雙重不法所得追討措施，以完全杜絕業者以違法行為牟取暴利之誘因，茲述如下：

一、按食品衛生管理法第49-1條：「犯本法之罪者，因犯罪所得財物或財產上利益，除應發還被害人外，不問屬於犯罪行為人與否，沒收之；如全部或一部不能沒收時，應追徵其價額或以其財產抵償之。但善意第三人以相當對價取得者，不在此限。為保全前項財物或財產上利益之沒收，其價額之追徵或財產之抵償，必要時，得酌量扣押其財產。依第一項規定對犯罪行為人以外之自然人、法人或非法人團體為財物或財產上利益之沒收，由檢察官聲請法院以裁定行之。法院於裁定前應通知該當事人到場陳述意見。聲請人及受裁定人對於前項裁定，得抗告。檢察官依本條聲請沒收犯罪所得財物、財產上利益、追徵價額或抵償財產之推估計價辦法，由行政院定之。」本條之立法修正理由（註1）係因：

（一）為使違反本法之企業因違法所獲得之不法利得能確實被沒收，並防止該不法利得脫產移轉與非善意之第三人，影響不法利得之追討，爰參考洗錢防制法第十四條之規定修正原條文第一項，規定其因犯罪所得財物或財產上利益，除應發還被害人者外，不問屬於犯罪行為人或犯罪行為人以外之第三人，均沒收之。

（二）原條文第一項犯人用語配合刑法修正為犯罪行為人。又本法第四十九條第五項既已規定可科處法人罰金刑，即表示承認法人之犯罪能力，自應認係本條第一項所稱之「犯罪行為人」，從而第一項之「犯罪行為人」兼指自然人與法人。

（三）原條文第一項僅規定犯罪行為人本身取得不法利得之沒收，至於犯罪行為人以外之自然人、法人或非法人團體（以下稱第三人）因而獲得不法利益，卻漏未規定，使該第三人坐享犯罪所得，致受害廠商、消費者求償無門，實有不公。況國際公約及外國立法例均有剝奪第三人不法利得之規定，本法為填補漏洞，乃增訂第三人不法利得沒收之規定，爰於第一項參酌洗錢防制法第十四條第一項規定，對取得犯本法之罪之不法利得者，係「不問屬於犯罪行為人與否」均沒收之，以期周延，並符公平正義。而所謂「不問屬於犯罪行為人與否」係指該不法利得無論屬於犯罪行為人、或犯罪行為人以外之自然人、法人或非法人團體，均應沒收之。

（四）第三人取得他人犯本法之罪之不法利得，固應沒收，然第三人若出於善意且有支付相當對價，本為一般交易之型態，並非不當利得，而不具有非難性，為兼顧正常交易之信賴關係及他人財產權之保護，爰於但書增訂不得沒收之例外規定。

（五）原條文第二項為文字修正，增加「其價額」用語。

（六）檢察官聲請沒收第三人不法利得時，應檢具事證單獨向法院聲請，由法院以裁定方式為之；至於對犯罪行為人不法利得之沒收程序，則依刑法第四十條第一項規定，於裁判時併宣告之。又因該沒收裁定與第三人之財產相關，不宜僅以書面審查，應賦予該當事人有到場陳述意見之機會，故於第三項規定第三人訴訟權之保障。

食品安全衛生管理法之刑罰規定（中） / 律師 吳英志  總編輯法學博士范國華主持律師

參、食品安全犯罪行為類型

長期以來，發現不肖廠商於製造食品時，為降低成本牟取暴利，乃以劣質品混充優質品或以人工原料混充天然食材，對民眾食品衛生安全及消費者權益影響甚鉅，應予遏止。對於此類不法行為，雖本法第44條至48條已有相關行政罰則處罰規定，然為加強遏止不肖廠商之違法行為，非採刑罰制裁加重處罰，不足以發揮不法遏止作用，故於本法第49條定有刑罰規定，同時於食品安全衛生管理法歷次修法中，加重刑度與罰金，提高檢舉獎金，以維國人健康及消費權益。茲述如下：

一、按食品衛生管理法第49條第1項：「有第十五條第一項第三款、第七款、第十款或第十六條第一款行為者，處七年以下有期徒刑，得併科新臺幣八千萬元以下罰金。情節輕微者，處五年以下有期徒刑、拘役或科或併科新臺幣八百萬元以下罰金。」係針對（一）食品或食品添加物有毒或含有害人體健康之物質或異物者，不得製造、加工、調配、包裝、運送、貯存、販賣、輸入、輸出、作為贈品或公開陳列（二）食品或食品添加物有攙偽或假冒者，不得製造、加工、調配、包裝、運送、貯存、販賣、輸入、輸出、作為贈品或公開陳列（三）食品或食品添加物添加未經中央主管機關許可之添加物者，不得製造、加工、調配、包裝、運送、貯存、販賣、輸入、輸出、作為贈品或公開陳列。（四）食品器具、食品容器或包裝、食品用洗潔劑有毒者，不得製造、販賣、輸入、輸出或使用。

惟須注意，因違規食品態樣眾多，食品業者規模大小亦有不同，若一律處第一項前段處以重刑，似不符比例原則，故對違規情節輕微者，處以五年以下有期徒刑、拘役或科或併科新臺幣八百萬元以下罰金為宜，以符合罪刑相當原則，爰於第一項後段增訂情節輕微者之處罰。（註1）

二、本法第49條第2項及第3項：「有第四十四條至前條行為，情節重大足以危害人體健康之虞者，處七年以下有期徒刑，得併科新臺幣八千萬元以下罰金；致危害人體健康者，處一年以上七年以下有期徒刑，得併科新臺幣一億元以下罰金。犯前項之罪，因而致人於死者，處無期徒刑或七年以上有期徒刑，得併科新臺幣二億元以下罰金；致重傷者，處三年以上十年以下有期徒刑，得併科新臺幣一億五千萬元以下罰金。」

係因按原條文第一項為抽象危險犯，第二項為實害犯，司法實務上雖常已證明犯罪行為人有違反第四十四條至第四十八條之一義務之行為，卻往往難以證明有致危害人體健康之結果，致重大食安事件，難以課予犯罪行為人第二項之罪責，爰在抽象危險犯與實害犯間，於原條文第二項前段增訂具體危險犯之處罰類型，即犯罪行為人有第四十四條至第四十八條之一情節重大足以危害人體健康之虞者…，至同條項後段則為實害犯，需以有實害發生始成立犯罪，刑度亦較第一項之抽象危險犯及第二項前段之具體危險犯為重（註2）。

三、本法第49條第4項至第6項：「因過失犯第一項、第二項之罪者，處二年以下有期徒刑、拘役或科新臺幣六百萬元以下罰金。法人之代表人、法人或自然人之代理人、受僱人或其他從業人員，因執行業務犯第一項至第三項之罪者，除處罰其行為人外，對該法人或自然人科以各該項十倍以下之罰金。科罰金時，應審酌刑法第五十八條規定。」

尤須注意是，自然人或法人犯本條之罪，而其不法利得超過各項罰金最高額時，法院在量處罰金刑時，應審酌刑法第五十八條規定，在不法利得範圍內酌量加重，爰於第六項增訂，以提醒法官注意適用（註3）。

壹、前言

臺灣自2013年10月起爆發一系列食用油油品風暴後，例如：大統食用油品混攙棉籽油及違法添加銅葉綠素、富味鄉棉籽油調合油品事件、頂新製油屏東廠混摻大統問題油品等，令廣大消費者 不免質疑政府對於食品安全管理事項及違法事項，疏於事前管制監督與事後重罰嚇阻，以致於食品產業為了降低成本牟取暴利，進而挺而走險，陷全民自身健維護於不可預測傷害風險中。為挽回民眾對於政府維護食品安全積極管理與違法嚴懲之決心與信賴，2013年6月19日、2014年2月5日、2014年12月10日、2015年2月4日及2015年12月16日食品安全衛生管理法歷進五次大動作修法工程，期盼透過食品安全衛生管理法令修正與適用，解決上揭因食安風暴所衍生法制問題及嚇阻不肖食品業者僥倖違法行為。

貳、食品安全衛生管理法五次修法沿革與執法要點說明（註1)

我國發明專利侵害鑑定之方法（上）專利工程師  /  陳詠容

Ways to examine invention patent infringements in Taiwan (1)

Patent Engineer Yung-Zhong Chen

為了保護發明人的智慧財產權，我國專利法授予專利權人於一定的期間內，享有法律賦予之專利權，排除他人未經其同意而實施其專利。而當他人未經專利權人同意而製造、販賣、為販賣之要約、使用或為上述目的而進口其專利物品時，專利權人得依《專利法》及《民法》請求損害賠償。倘專利侵權案件有爭議，雙方當事人得尋求法律途徑解決。法院在受理發明專利訴訟案件時，依據《專利法》第103條第2項及第3項規定，得囑託司法院指定之侵害專利鑑定專業機構為鑑定。經濟部智慧財產局（以下簡稱「智財局」）為有助於侵害專利鑑定機構提昇作業之正確性，遂提出「專利侵害鑑定要點」供法官於送鑑定時參考。

In order to protect inventor’s intellectual property right, Taiwan’s patent law authorities may grant its patentee, within a considerable period of time, some legal patent rights. Unless otherwise provided in this Act, the patentee of a patented article shall have the exclusive right to preclude others from manufacturing, making an offer to sale, selling, using or importing for above purposes the patented article without his/her prior consent. Patentee can request for damages in pursuant to the “Patent Law” and “Civil Law”. If disputes arises in terms of infringement on an invention patent, both parties can resolve its conflict through litigation, Pursuant to Patent Law Article 103, Paragraph 2(3) in regards to litigation involving an invention patent, the Judicial Yuan may appoint specific professional institution(s) to perform the expert verification work as required in patent infringement case. In order to help to increase the accuracy for specific professional institution(s) to perform the expert verification work as required in patent infringement case(s), the Ministry of Economic Affairs Intellectual Property Office (“Intellectual Property Office”), may list out all the relevant evidences of invention patent infringements before court.

智財局於2015年草擬的「專利侵害鑑定要點草案」（以下簡稱「2015年要點草案」）中指出，在判斷專利是否有被侵害時，應先解釋專利範圍之文字意義，以合理界定專利權範圍。後比對經文字解釋後之專利技術特徵，及被控侵權對象之技術內容的差別。文字意義解釋的用意在於確認專利是否完全對應表現在被控侵權對象中（文義讀取）。一般常見被控侵權物雖未落入文義讀取的範圍內，惟其僅就其申請專利範圍之技術特徵稍作非實質之改變或替換，基於保障專利權人利益的立場，專利權範圍得擴大至，與專利範圍之技術特徵均等的範圍，而非僅侷限於專利之文義範圍（均等論）。According to the “key points on invention patent infringement draft” (“key point draft 2015”) indicates that in order to examine there is any invention patent infringements, shall understand its literal meaning written in its specifications so as to know what is covered in its claims and the drawings of the application. After having its literal interpretation done on its technical patent and infringement parties’ technical contents of an invention, it is to confirm whether such infringements are truly reflected to the corresponding object (literally). Despite the general infringement has not been written in its specification, if you make some amendments to its claims and the drawings of the application, would protect patentee’s best interest by expanding its clams of specification. By pursuing the doctrine of equivalents would allow a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement despite such infringement does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim, but can nevertheless be equivalent to the claimed invention (doctrine of equivalents).

我國有部分法院見解在判斷被控侵權物是否落入均等範圍時，已採取美國的三步測試法，比較兩者之間是否以實質相同的手段，達成實質相同的功能，進一步判斷是否產生實質相同的結果。值得注意的是，均等論如被過度廣泛應用，勢必將會與智財局公告的專利保護範圍產生衝突，而法院判決並沒有權利擴大專利局核准的專利範圍。因此，均等論與文義讀取皆應建立在全要件原則的基礎上，專利範圍請求項經智財局公告的專利範圍，都被視為決定專利範圍的重要限制，亦即，申請專利請求項中的技術特徵，均用於比對被控侵權對象。 In order to determine whether such infringement falls into its doctrine of equivalents category, Taiwan adapted United States’ “triple identity” test on whether the accused device performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way and to yield substantially the same result. However, if the “doctrine of equivalents” is being used widely, conflict may arise with the scope of patent protection made by the Intellectual Property Office. The court may not have the power to expand the scope of the claims and the drawings of the application. Therefore, the “doctrine of equivalents” and its literature should be built on the full requirements. Where the contents of an invention claimed in a patent application are published, would be treated as major decision to restrict the scope of patent claiming. Therefore, the scope of claims shall indicate distinctly on its technical features so as to identify the alleged infringement parties.

參考資料：References

專利侵害鑑定要點，經濟部智慧財產局，2004年。Intellectual Property Office (2004) Key points on invention patent infringement.