切餅專利侵權案（二）

在上一篇提到的切餅侵權案中，透過其中判決文所提到的爭點可以學到一些事情，隨意整理一下。

更正一下前篇提到的專利範圍，最後獲准的範圍如下，顯然是在答辯過程限縮過的，主要特徵經過粗體標示：
[Claim 1] （JPO機器翻譯）
On the side periphery surface which is a placing bottom surface of cut rice cake which is a rectangular wafer rice cake object, or not a flat upper surface but a reorganization side surface of an upper surface part of this wafer rice cake object, contour shape which is placed on a gridiron, is roasted and is eaten, Provide 1 which has length in this hoop direction by making a direction along this reorganization side surface into a hoop direction, two or more notching parts, or a groove part, and this notching part or groove part, As a notching part formed in opposite 2 side surface on the surface of a side periphery which is the aforementioned reorganization side surface or it made this hoop direction carry out round continuation by having made a direction along this reorganization side surface into a hoop direction and considered it as the shape of a square ring, or a groove part, Rice cake which changes with the characteristics a thing to outside by expansion constituted so that it might spurt out and might be inhibited into the state where contents which it faced roasting, was raised to the bottom above the aforementioned notching part or a groove part, and were plumped between up-and-down ovenware shaped parts like the midst or sandwiches are sandwiched, by carrying out expansion deformation.

(1)
日本專利法中規範侵權行為與賠償的法條在第100條：侵權行為及於產品、製造產品的流程、由侵權行為製作的產品，並可要求移除使用於侵權行為的設施。
[英文版]
Article 100 (Right to seek injunction)
(1) A patentee or exclusive licensee may demand a person who infringes or is likely to infringe the patent right or exclusive license to stop or prevent such infringement.
(2) In making a demand under the preceding paragraph, the patentee or exclusive licensee may demand measures necessary for the prevention of such infringement including the disposal of products constituting such act of infringement (including, in the case of a patented invention of a process of producing products, products produced by the act of infringement; the same shall apply in Article 102(1)) and the removal of facilities used for the act of infringement.

(2)
解釋專利範圍，經過法院解釋後，其範圍限定為(A)用在烤架上的方形年糕/米糕/米餅（這幾種名稱是我的認知）；(B)"糕體"頂部非平坦，側面方向有個一定長度的"槽部"；(C)切口在周圍兩個側邊的對應側；(D)當烘烤時會膨脹，其中的內容會溢出。
顯然法官解釋的專利範圍已經引入不少說明書所載的實施例，恰巧被控侵權物仍是落入這個解釋範圍內。

(3)
法院拆解疑似侵權物後，解構後要件有：
(A)用在烤架上；(B)形狀為長方形的年糕；(C)有上下表面、長短邊、凹槽；(D)側邊凹槽有垂直與平行的。

(4)
爭點有三：(一)是否為相同技術領域；(二)專利權行使是否有限制；(三)賠償金額。
其中是否能行使專利權是因為被控方提出該專利並不明確（清晰），法院回應該專利核准於"舊"專利法，並未違反該專利法的規定，並且請求項已經明確界定範圍，無不明確的問題。
被控方提出請求項不被說明書所支持，包括非平坦表面的描述，並且提到經過烘烤不會被影響其外觀，與前述解釋提到烘烤會膨脹的特徵不符，但法院認為說明書已經支撐請求項。
被控方提出本領域技術人員無法根據該專利而據以實施，法院認為無此問題。
被控方提出該專利的具體結構並未完整描述，包括內容物、膨脹的狀態、燒烤過程等，但法院認為已經請求項的描述足以實現該發明。
被控方更提出有前案足以使該專利不具新穎性、進步性（容易想到），專利權人則是提出相關證據證明前案與該專利的差異，甚至提出當時的新聞報導。

(5)
賠償金額的規定在日本專利法第102條：賠償金額將根據是否故意或是不小心的侵權行為，並包括因為侵權而得的利潤。
[英文版]
Article 102 (Presumption of Amount of Damage, etc.)
(2) Where a patentee or an exclusive licensee claims against an infringer compensation for damage sustained as a result of the intentional or negligent infringement of the patent right or exclusive license, and the infringer earned profits from the act of infringement, the amount of profits earned by the infringer shall be presumed to be the amount of damage sustained by the patentee or exclusive licensee.
(3) A patentee or an exclusive licensee may claim against an infringer compensation for damage sustained as a result of the intentional or negligent infringement of the patent right or exclusive license, by regarding the amount the patentee or exclusive licensee would have been entitled to receive for the working of the patented invention as the amount of damage sustained.


Ron
資料來源：http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20101203173939.pdf