筆記
此最高法院的判例要求權利範圍與被告侵權物之間應逐個元件比對是否有一致的功能、方式或是結果，而非整個權利範圍總的（as a whole）判斷，避免語文產生的模糊解釋空間。
參考先前專利分析：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/10/blog-post_4955.html
In Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.,
520 U.S. 17 (1997), the Supreme Court severely limited power of the
doctrine of equivalents by ruling that the equivalents test must be done
on an element-by-element basis rather than by focusing on the claim as a
whole.
為避免專利權人濫用均等論來解釋專利範圍，在此判例中，美國最高法院對於專利侵權判斷的態度仍是逐元件（element-by-element）比對，而非僅由專利範圍整體的效果（總的，as a whole）來看：
用於均等論的特定語言框架（particular linguistic framework）並不會比證據的必要調查重要，也就是侵權判斷應著重在被告侵權產品或是流程中的元件是否相同或等效（identical or equivalent to）專利範圍的每一個元件，不同的語言框架可能會根據事實而適用不同的案件。著重在個別元件的判斷方式可以避免文字產生的模糊解釋空間。侵權比對時，若沒有文義讀取，顯然被告侵權物採用了替代方案，侵權判斷應著重在被告侵權產品的各個元件與專利範圍中各元件之間是否有一致的功能、方式與結果（function, way, and result），若被告侵權產品的特定元件與專利範圍特定元件實質上不同，則不應判斷為侵權。
[原文，摘自Patently-O部落格的摘錄文章]
In our view, the particular linguistic framework used [for the Doctrine
of Equivalents] is less important than whether the test is probative of
the essential inquiry: Does the accused product or process contain
elements identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented
invention? Different linguistic frameworks may be more suitable to
different cases, depending on their particular facts. A focus on
individual elements and a special vigilance against allowing the concept
of equivalence to eliminate completely any such elements should reduce
considerably the imprecision of whatever language is used. An analysis
of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent
claim will thus inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute element
matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element, or whether
the substitute element plays a role substantially different from the
claimed element. With these limiting principles as a backdrop, we see no
purpose in going further and micromanaging the Federal Circuit's
particular word choice for analyzing equivalence. We expect that the
Federal Circuit will refine the formulation of the test for equivalence
in the orderly course of case-by-case determinations, and we leave such
refinement to that court's sound judgment in this area of its special
expertise.
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言