眾律國際法律事務所

專利進步性之判斷（一）—美國判例於進步性之原則—   專利工程師  /  陳詠容

Discretion of whether such patent has useful improvement to the existing solution (1) – improvement to the existing solution principles in Taiwan - Patent Engineer Yung-Zhong Chen

一、前言 Preamble

新穎性、進步性與產業可利用性為取得專利權之三大要件，發明欲取得專利權需同時兼具該三要素。然而綜觀專利行政爭訟與民事訴訟之案例，不難發現近期與進步性相關的爭議佔了絕大部份之比例。本文分作四篇，前兩篇先帶讀者了解美國判例對於進步性所建立出之判斷準則，接著檢視該準則與我國現行專利法與專利審查基準對於進步性判斷基準之異同，最後探討我國實務判決之判定標準。

The issue of novelty, improvement to the existing solution, and industrial usefulness are the three main requirements to gain its patent right. By looking at the patent administrative litigation and civil litigation case studies, it is not hard to find that there are more topics focuses on its controversial issues of improvement to the existing solution principles. This article would be divided into four parts; the first two articles would lead our reader to understand how the America’s case study can influence on its discretion of whether its patent has useful improvement to the existing solution, followed by examining its judicial reasoning by comparing our current patent examination procedure. Lastly, we will discuss Taiwan’s case judgements and its criteria standards.

二、美國判例於進步性之原則

America’s case implications on its improvement to the existing solution principles

美國對於進步性之判斷，早已豎立了TSM檢測法，即教示（Teaching）、建議（Suggestion）及動機（Motivation）。而1966年美國最高法院於Graham v. John Deere Co.^[1]案（以下簡稱「Graham案」）提出進步性分析原則^[2]：(1) 確定先前技術之範圍與內容；(2) 確定先前技術與有爭議之專利範圍請求項間之區別；(3) 確定相關領域一般技術之水準。如經此三步驟判斷出爭議專利範圍請求項係其所屬領域中具通常知識者可輕易完成者，則該發明則為顯而易見，惟仍須同時考量爭議之專利範圍是否有商業上成功、解決長期未解決之問題、或他人皆無法成功發明等次要衡量因素。然而，TSM檢測法在美國實務運作卻產生引證資料只限於明示，且忽略所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者之角色等問題[3]。

In terms of America’s discretion of whether such patent has useful improvement to the existing solution, there is implications on the TSM test and concepts including teaching, suggestion and motivation. In the case of Graham v John Deere Co (1996), (“Graham” case) list out all the elements when determining whether its application has improvement to the existing solution on principles. This includes: (1) confirm the claims and the drawings of the application; (2) confirm its prior art and the disputed claims and the drawings of the current application; (3) confirm relevant skills in the relevant field. Once we determine the three steps in terms of its patent dispute range that an ordinary person can be easily accomplished, such patent would be treated as ‘obvious to try’ and its case would be treated as invalid. However examiner should also need to balance and to take other factors into account such as how wide is its patent claiming and whether there is any business success, long term problem solving solutions or others inventions that cannot be easily accomplished by an ordinary person. However by looking at the implications of the TSM test, it only included ‘obvious to try’ principle in practice but neglected to look at its technology field problems for which an ordinary person would have.

專利進步性之判斷（二）—美國判例於進步性之原則專利工程師  /  陳詠容

Discretion of whether such patent has useful improvement to the existing solution (2) – improvement to the existing solution principles in Taiwan – Patent Engineer Yung-Zhong Chen

呈上篇，2007 年美國最高法院於 KSR v. Teleflex 案[1]除了重申Graham判決提出的分析方法應為廣泛、彈性，更指出TSM 檢測法之運用不宜僵化^[2]，認為[3] (1) 引證案不應侷限於所欲解決的問題相同：在探求一專利請求項是否具備非顯著性時，應以請求項之客觀範圍為判斷標的，而非專利權人企圖解決什麼問題上或受到什麼特定的啟發 。縱然先前技術解決的問題，未必與爭議發明完全相同，不能僅因引證專利主要目的與爭議專利標的不同即不考慮以引證專利所揭露之技術作為證據；(2) 先前技術應涵蓋所有技術領域：且一位通常知識者在面對問題時有可能利用的所有解決方式，因此不應將技術領域侷限於該發明之所屬領域； (3) 「教示、建議或誘因」的考量不應僅限於先前技術：市場改良的渴望與顧客的需求所形成的市場力量，亦可形成新發明技術的因果關係；(4) 可預見之成功並非發明：一個擁有通常技術的人因市場需求而採取某種解決方式，而創造出原先預期之成功時，這不是發明而是常識，為顯而易見的嘗試(obvious to try)，不符進步性應為非顯而易見之規定。

From the previous article, in the case of KSR v. Teleflex (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims. There should be broader obviousness evaluation established in Graham with some flexibility on its “teaching-suggestion-motivation” (TSM) test. Elements include the following:

(1) The citing reference should not be restricted to merely solving problems but to examine whether such patent has useful improvement to the existing solution. Examiner should examine base on its objective claiming, not to merely look at the inspiration made by patentee when resolving issues. Despite its prior art has resolved some of the issues, it is not necessary the same with the current patent application in dispute. Examiner cannot examine its application base on its differences in terms of its purposes or patent objectives in dispute, but to merely consider the disclosed citing reference as evidence for comparison; (2) its prior art covered all the technology field, this include to resolve issues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done to combine the prior art elements to the current matter; (3) teaching, suggestion and motivation should not be restricted to its prior art but to adjust its claim in accordance with market’s desire of improvement and client needs in the market; so as to create a correlation of its new design and its technology; (4) such success is foreseeable, not necessarily to its invention: under general circumstances, a technical person would adjust its problem solving solution in accordance to its market needs and for which is foreseeable in advance would not be considered as an invention but as common sense. The reason behind this is that ‘obvious to try’ does not fulfill the improvement to the existing solution principle requirement.  

KSR案使得非顯而易見性在進步性的審查上較為嚴格，請求項易受到先前技術之挑戰，新申請之專利取得趨於困難，而已取得專利之申請案則易於遭受不具進步性而撤銷其專利權之挑戰[4]。而如欲舉證專利權不具進步性，發明人在專利所屬技術領域所受之訓練或教育程度、對系爭發明之成功的合理預期或發明是否由常用的研發方式研發出來，皆成為KSR案後得做為判斷因素之證據。

From the case of KSR, we can know that there seems to have a strict restriction in terms of making its discretion of whether such patent has useful improvement to the existing solution. Such claim can be easily challenged with its prior art and makes it harder to grant its application that the invention does not have improvement to the existing solution. If evidence shows that such patent does not have any improvement, factors would be taken into accounts in terms of its patent designer’s training skills and education, disputed invention of a reasonable expectation of success would be analyzing factors after case of KSR.

[1] 550 U.S. 398, 419-22 (2007).

[2] 參顏吉承，美國 KSR 案判決對我國進步性審查之啟示，智慧財產權月刊，第105 期 ，2007年，頁17-21。

專利進步性之判斷（三） —  我國於進步性之原則專利工程師  /  陳詠容

Discretion of whether such patent has useful improvement to the existing solution (3) – improvement to the existing solution principles in Taiwan - Patent Engineer Yung-Zhong Chen

三、我國專利法對於之判斷準則

3. Taiwan’s Patent Law patentability criteria

對照美國判例所建立之原理原則與我國《專利法》與《專利審查基準》之進步性判斷標準大體上為一致的。我國於在判斷進步性時依循下列步驟^[1]：(1) 確定申請專利之發明的範圍；(2) 確定相關先前技術所揭露的內容；(3) 確定申請專利之發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者之技術水準；(4) 確認申請專利之發明與相關先前技術之間的差異；(5) 該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者參酌相關先前技術所揭露之內容及申請時之通常知識，判斷是否能輕易完成申請專利之發明的整體。且判斷時應以專利申請發明整體為對象，綜合考量其是否有動機而明顯結合相關先前技術，包含技術領域、所欲解決之問題、功能或作用的關連性或發明的教示或建議。發明雖經上述判斷不具進步性，惟倘其具有無法預期之功效、解決長期存在的問題、克服技術偏見、獲得商業上的成功，則申請專利之發明仍應視為非能輕易完成。

By looking at America’s patent precedent which is established based on previous legal cases, is similar to Taiwan’s patent law and patent examination procedure’s principles on useful improvement to the existing solution. There are steps to determine whether there is improvement to the existing patent: (1) confirm the claims and the drawings of the application; (2) confirm its content of prior art and to confirm what information has been made available in public previously; (3) confirm its technical field in its specification; (4) confirm the difference between prior art and the current application; (5) having ordinarily knowledge based on its prior art before filing its application. In addition when making its discretion, examiner should take its overall patent application into account and to gather all the factors in terms of its prior art; including its technical field, problem solving, its function and role or other suggested invention or teaching. Even though by its discretion, such invention may not have useful improvement to the existing solution, for which the invention doesn’t have prospective functionality, long term problem solving, conquer technical bias, gaining business success, however such patent may still be hard to accomplish.

四、我國判例對於進步性之判斷準則

4. Relative cases on its improvement to the existing solution principles in Taiwan

標示專利證書號的效果 / 專利工程師林孟萱 The effect to mark the serial number of patent certificate / Patent Engineer Meng-Xuan Lin

當專利獲准時，專利專責機關會頒給專利權人具有專利證書號的專利證書。將專利證書號標示在商品上，除了具有宣示作用之外亦具有廣告作用。一方面是向社會大眾宣示此商品具有專利權，未經專利權人同意即製造、販賣會有專利侵權問題；另一方面民眾一般認為擁有專利權的產品於技術內涵上必定有一定之水準，故又有廣告宣傳的作用。而將專利證書號標示在商品上，是專利權人的權利還是義務，各國有不同的見解。

When such patent is granted, the Patent Authority shall mark the serial number of patent certificate on his/her patented article. Such serial number of patent certificate would be marked on products for declaration and advertisement purposes. On the other hand, it is to declare the public that such product has its patent right, the patentee of a utility model shall have the exclusive right to preclude other persons from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling, using, or importing for such purposes such patented products without his/her prior consent. In addition, the general public believes that if such products have its patent right; it generally means that such product has its standard quality. This is another way of advertisement. Therefore question arises as to whether to mark the serial number of patent on his/her patented article is considered as its right or obligation, every country has its own different interpretations.

美國專利法第287條規定為專利標示是專利權人的義務，並且是請求損害賠償的前提要件；日本特許法第187條僅訓示性「勸導」專利權人應努力在產品上進行專利標示，未揭示專利產品無專利標示會有何後果；英國專利法第62條第1項以及澳洲專利法第187條亦將專利標示作為侵權行為人是否知悉專利權存在的要件(註[1])；大陸專利法第17條第二項規定「專利權人有權在其專利產品或著該產品的包裝上標示專利標示」，故推定專利標示於大陸是專利權人的權利而非義務。

United States Patent Law Article 287 indicates that the patent label is considered as patentee’s patent right and has grounds to seek for compensation for its damages. Japan Patent Law Article 187 only indicates that a patentee, exclusive licensee or non-exclusive licensee shall make efforts to place a mark to indicate that the product or process is patented. United Kingdom Patent Act Article 62, Paragraph 1 and Australian Patent Law Article 187 indicates that in proceedings for infringement of a patent damages shall not be awarded, and no order shall be made against a defendant or defender who proves that at the date of the infringement has was not ware, and had no reasonable grounds of supposing, that the patent existed. China Patent Law Article 17, Paragraph 2 indicates that “an inventor or designer shall have the right to state in the patent documents that he/she is the inventor or designer. The patentee shall have the right to have his patent mark displayed on the patented products or the package of such products.” Therefore, the trademark mark is considered as patentee’s right but not obligation.

依照我國現行專利法第98條規定，專利權人應於專利物上標示專利證書號，若因物品過小或形狀怪異等因素而無法標示於物品上時，應於標籤、包裝或其他組已引起他人注意的方式標示，若未標示，請求損害賠償時，應舉證證明侵害行為人明知或可得而知為專利物。

According to Taiwan’s Patent Act Article 98, an invention patentee shall mark the serial number of patent certificate on his/her patented article or the packaging thereof, unless the item is too small or with odd shapes that it is not feasible to mark the serial number of patent certificate. In case of failure to affix such marking, no claim for damages shall be allowed, except in the case that the infringer has known, or should have known as proved by facts, the existence of the patent.

承上段所述，專利標示在我國並非義務，亦非請求損害賠償的前提要件，亦未將專利標示列為侵權行為人是否知悉專利權存在的要件。為避免限縮專利權人請求損害賠償的權益以及減輕其負擔，我國現行專利法免除了於物品上標示專利證號的專利權人於專利侵權人的舉證責任，用以鼓勵專利權人將專利證書號標示在商品上讓大眾知悉該產品為專利產品。雖然我國目前核准之專利皆會公告在專利公報上，但並非所有人都會定期閱讀公報，亦並非每個人都能輕易瞭解具有一定格式的專利說明書以及專利申請範圍，透過專利物品的專利標示可以讓人較容易瞭解該專利權所在的技術領域。

From the above, we can know to mark the serial number of patent certificate is not considered obligatory and shall not claim for damages. Whether prior to filing, such a patent application has become known to the public, in order to prevent restraining its claim for damages, there is no burden of proof on the plaintiff where an invalidation action instituted involves the trial proceedings. This is to promote an invention patentee to mark the serial number of patent certificate on his/her patented article or the packaging thereof. Even though the Patent Authority would publish our granted patent in the Patent Gazette, however people in public wouldn’t read such Patent Gazette on regular basis, nor may necessarily understand its patent specification’s format and the claims and the drawings of the application. By marking the serial number of patent would make it easier for the public to understand the technical field of its patent.

註：

商標「善意」先使用：明知或非明知？ 實習律師李汝民 Using its trademark with Bona fide: knowingly or not knowingly? Intern Lawyer Ru-Min Lee

前言Preamble

商標法第30條第1項第3款規定：在他人商標註冊申請日前，善意使用相同或近似之商標於同一或類似之商品或服務者，不受他人商標權之效力所拘束。同款但書並規定，善意使用以原使用之商品或服務為限，商標權人並得要求其附加適當之區別標示。此即商標法所謂「善意先使用」之規定（商標法逐條釋義，頁95），其立法目的在於，商標權人於商標獲准註冊後雖享有排除他人使用其商標之權利，但為了避免過度保護商標專用權利反而造成市場自由競爭之阻礙、以及適當調和商標先註冊主義與先使用主義之衝突，故對於商標專用權利加諸一定之限制。

Trademark Act Article 30, Paragraph 1(3): by bona fide, prior to the filing date of the registered trademark, the proprietor of the registered trademark is entitled to request the party who use the trademark to add an appropriate and distinguishing indication when there is an identical or similar trademark on goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the registered trademark is protected for which the use is only on the original goods or services.

The purpose for such is for the proprietor of the registered to exclude others from using its registered trademark. Even though such third person knowingly used another person’s well-known registered trademark with bona fide (Trademark Act Interpretation, page 95). However in order to prevent overprotection on its trademark right which obstruct its free trade competition, it is important to have an appropriate reconciliation between the first register doctrine and the doctrine of first use of trademark. Therefore some of the restrictions need to be imposed on its trademark rights.

「善意」之解釋

What is ‘bona fide’?

然，所謂的「善意」，解釋上可能如同民法條文之「善意第三人」，係「不知情」之意。則「善意先使用」即須不知有他人商標，而使用相同或近似之商標於同一或類似之商品或服務，方可主張。

However the word ‘bona fide’, from its interpretation in civil law means ‘bona fides third party’, which has ‘not knowingly’ meaning. Where the trademark is identical with or similar to another person’s registered trademark in relation to goods or services, for which another person’s registered trademark is designated, does exists its likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers, would have grounds for revocation.

實務上有台灣台北地方法院93年度智字第70號判決可供參考。該判決指出，「商標法第30條第1項第3款之『善意』，係指『並非以不正當競爭為目的』，即使商標權人已使用商標，未申請註冊，但第三人明知該商標己使用，卻使用他人商標，在商標權人註冊商標後，第三人仍使用該商標，其不得主張係善意使用。」

商標權之侵害及救濟

Infringement of registered trademark and its remedy

眾律國際法律事務所|眾律國際專利商標事務所|專利工程師暨法務 簡敏丞

Zoomlaw Attorneys-At-Law|Zoomlaw IP Attorneys|Patent Engineer and Legal Assistant Cheng-Ming Jane

壹、民事責任之侵害行為及法律效果

1. Violations of Civil Liability and its legal effect

一、一般侵害之行為

(1) General Infringement                                                                       

台灣商標法第61條第2項明文規定:『未經商標權人同意，而有第29條第2款規定情形之一者，為侵害商標權。』而第29條第2項所規定之各款，即對於商標權排他效力之規定，必須要得到商標權人之同意，否則即為侵害商標權人之商標權，其包括下列情形:

Taiwan’s Trademark Act Article 61, paragraph 2 expressly indicates that: “in the course of trade, without consent of the proprietor of a registered trademark in any of the following act, constitute infringement and the right of such trademark.” Article 29, paragraph 2 listed out all grounds for refusal of registration that any of the following acts, without consent of the proprietor of a registered trademark, shall be deemed as infringement of its trademark right:

Australian Partner Visa (Subclasses 801) Summary

澳洲配偶簽證 (Subclasses 801) 概要

• What is a Partner Visa?
• How can I apply for a Partner Visa through a ‘de-facto relationship’?

Partner visa is a type of visa that allows the spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen to live in Australia. This category of migration permits married partners (example opposite-sex spouses) and de facto partners (including those in a same-sex relationship) of Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and eligible New Zealand citizens to enter and remain permanently in Australia.  Partners who meet the legal criteria will be granted a subclass 820 temporary visa followed by a Subclass 801 (partner) residence visa provided that you are still in the relationship with your Australian partner two (2) years after first applying for the subclass 820 visa.

什麼是配偶簽證?

配偶簽證是一種簽證允許澳大利亞公民, 永久居民, 紐西蘭公民之配偶或實質同居之配偶可以享有在澳洲永久居住權的權利。這個移民類別允許澳洲公民, 永久居民, 紐西蘭公民之結婚伴侶 (例如不同性別伴侶) 和同居伴侶 (包含同性伴侶) 可以享有澳洲居留權。其伴侶只要符合其法律標準，就可以獲得Subclasses 820 的短暫簽證，並在獲得Subclasses 820之後與其澳洲伴侶實質上住滿兩(2)年以上, 便會獲得 Subclass 801 之永久居留簽證。

To satisfy that there is a ‘de-facto relationship’,[1] a person must be the de facto partner of another person (whether of the same sex or a different sex) if they are not in a married relationship[2] and they have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others; and the relationship between them is genuine and continuing that they live together or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. 

怎麼利用同居伴侶的關係申請永久居留證?

為了滿足其法律上認定的’同居伴侶’之要件，如果沒有實質上的婚姻關係，雙方不管是同性或異性，必須要排除所有其他人並互相有共同生活的承諾，並要持續實質上的住在一起，並且不能長期分居為基礎原則。

2.0 Application