2012年10月16日 星期二

均等論的適用條件

均等論的採用是能適度讓專利權可以涵蓋一個合理的範圍,而不致被專利範圍的描述文字所限制,一方面保護專利權人有一定的法律保障,也杜絕利用文意迴避的方式抄襲別人發明的惡意行為。

但均等論若遭濫用,也可能讓專利權人有不當擴大專利範圍解釋的可能,因此需要規範出均等論的適用條件,並且均等論的適用也被專利獲得前答辯過程所拋棄的權利範圍所限制,在美國專利中,均等論是逐條權利項討論,甚至是逐元件判斷均等論的適用(element by element basis),並非整體觀之。

1997年的判例(Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co. (1997))確認一個產品是否侵害某一專利權的判斷是判斷被告產品與申請專利範圍文意上的差異是否為非實質的差異(insubstantial)。也就是說,當判斷被告產品與權利範圍的文字描述的差異並非實質(insubstantial),則落入均等範圍。

比對被告產品與申請專利範圍間的差異是否足夠判斷侵權,引用一種"triple identity"的測試,也就是常見的"function", "way" and "result".
  1. It performs substantially the same function
  2. In substantially the same way
  3. To yield substantially the same result
若被告產品與專利都是執行實質相同的功能、用實質相同的方法,以及產生實質相同的結果,三個判斷都符合時,即便有文意上的差別,經均等論判斷為侵權成立。(這裡並未詳述均等論判斷同時考慮禁反言)

此判例為美國最高法院的決定,其中提告者為Hilton Davis Chemical Co.,是個染料製造商,開發出一個可以純化染料,擁有美國專利US4,560,746。在此專利答辯歷史中,申請人修正了「超微過濾(ultrafiltration)」製程中溶液的酸鹼度(PH值)為6.0到9.0之間,這是為了迴避審查意見引用的前案提到PH值在9.0以上。在此案例中被告Warner-Jenkinson Co.的產品使用的溶液PH值為5.0

專利範圍,整個一口氣(貼出來只是交待一下):
1. In a process for the purification of a dye selected from the group consisting of the disodium salt of 1-[(6-methoxy-4-sulfo-3-methylphenyl)azo]-2-naphthol-6-sulfonic acid, the disodium salt of 1-[(4-sulfophenyl)azo]-2-naphthol-6-sulfonic acid, the trisodium salt of 1-[1-(4-sulfonaphthyl)azo]-2-naphthol-3,6-disulfonic acid, the disodium salt of 2-[1-(4-sulfonaphthyl)azo]-1-naphthol-4-sulfonic acid and the sodium salt of 2-(2-quinolyl)-1,3-indanedione-sulfonic acid as the products resulting, respectively, from the diazotization of 5-methoxy-2-methylsulfanilic acid in water with sodium nitrite in the presence of hydrochloric acid followed by the coupling under alkaline conditions of the resulting 5-methoxy-4-sulfo-2-methylphenyldiazonium chloride with sodium 2-naphthol-6-sulfonate; the diazotization of sulfanilic acid in water with sodium nitrite in the presence of hydrochloric acid followed by the coupling under alkaline conditions of the resulting 4-sulfophenyldiazonium chloride with sodium 2-naphthol-6-sulfonate; the diazotization of 4-aminonaphthalene-1-sulfonic acid in water with sodium nitrite in the presence of hydrochloric acid followed by the coupling under alkaline conditions of the resulting 1-sulfonaphthyl-4-diazonium chloride with disodium 2-naphthol-3,6-disulfonate; the diazotization of 4-aminonaphthalene-1-sulfonic acid in water with sodium nitrite in the presence of hydrochloric acid followed by the coupling under alkaline conditions of the resulting 1-sulfonaphthyl-4-diazonium chloride with sodium 1-naphthol-4-sulfonate; and the condensation of 2-quinaldine with phthalic anhydride followed by sulfonation of the resulting 2-(2-quinolyl)-1,3-indanedione, said dye being present in the resulting reaction mixtures, along with impurities, the improvement which comprises:
subjecting an aqueous solution of the reaction mixture resulting from said coupling or said sulfonation to ultrafiltration through a membrane having a nominal pore diameter of 5-15 Angstroms under a hydrostatic pressure of approximately 200 to 400 p.s.i.g., at a pH from approximately 6.0 to 9.0, to thereby cause separation of said impurities from said dye, said impurities of a molecular size smaller than the nominal pore diameter passing into the permeate on the downstream side of said membrane and said dye remaining in the concentrate, and when substantially all said impurities have been removed from said concentrate, as evidenced by their essential absence in said permeate, recovering said dye, in approximately 90% purity from said concentrate by evaporation of said concentrate to dryness.

上述紅色字就是此件專利為了迴避前案所加入的限制。

於是,Hilton Davis Chemical Co.對Warner-Jenkinson Co.提出專利侵權訴訟,告訴人先承認被告的產品並未落入申請專利範圍的文意,於是採用均等論解釋被控侵權的產品為侵權。
在1986,Warner Jenkinson Co.開發了一種運作在薄膜孔徑在5-15 Angstroms與壓力200到500 p.s.i.g.(壓力單位)並PH值在5的「超微過濾」製程。

爭議就在專利權人在獲取專利期間為了迴避前案而修改了專利範圍,也就是PH值的上下限,但是主要是"上限",因此是否均等論可以適用"下限",也就是專利權人主張"下限"為"6"仍應均等涵蓋到被告的"5"。最高法院法官認為,如果告訴人可以證明專利取得過程在"較低"的PH值的限制並未限制專利範圍,仍可判為侵權!

此件侵權案的結果:
在地方法院中,陪審團認為,被告Warner-Jenkinson Co.侵權事實成立,但是判斷為非故意侵害(not intentionally),僅判賠Hilton要的20%賠償金。
另外對Warner-Jenkinson Co.發出禁制令,禁止該公司使用壓力在500 p.s.i.g.以下、PH值9.01以下的「超微過濾」製程以及以此製程生產的產品。
接著,最高法院同意地方法院的判斷,認為被告產品與專利範圍沒有實質上的差異(not substantially different from...'746)

結論,這件案子建立了均等論的適用條件,同時也確認答辯歷史禁反言(prosecution history estoppel) 仍可為專利權的限制條件,也為被告侵權者的答辯理由,但是專利權人仍能主張在答辯歷史的修改並未影響其專利權的主張。法院也應考慮答辯過程中修訂的目的,判斷修訂是否為影響均等論的適用。

Ron
資料參考:Wikipedia

1 則留言: