enpan's Patent & Linux practice: 英國專利進步性的判斷

2014年7月11日星期五

英國專利進步性的判斷 - Pozzoli案例討論

英國專利判斷發明是否具有進步性、非顯而易見性時，為了避免偏見，採用了英國上訴法院Windsurfing的判決所訂出的方法。
接著在另一案例"Pozzoli Spa v BDMO SA & Anor (2007) EWCA Civ 588"侵權案中，參考了Windsurfing判斷進步性的方法，上訴法院作出其中系爭專利因為顯而易見而無效的決定，該侵權案因此不成立。

英國法院判斷進步性的方法：
1. 確認相關發明相關領域的技術人員；確認相關技術人員的一般知識
2. 確認權利範圍中涉及進步性的問題（以專利申請日、優先權日為準）
3. 識別出引證前案（形成技術水平"state of the art"）與權利範圍的技術差別
4. 在不曉得發明的知識下，確認是否上述差異在相關技術人員為顯而易知，是否在該發明的技術水平下為顯而易知？

（http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness）

Windsurfing案例後的進步性（inventive step）判斷：

Identifying the inventive concept embodied in the patent;
Imputing to a normally skilled but unimaginative addressee what was common general knowledge in the art at the priority date;
Identifying the differences if any between the matter cited and the alleged invention; and
Deciding whether those differences, viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention, constituted steps which would have been obvious to the skilled man or whether they required any degree of invention.

Pozzoli Spa v BDMO SA & Anor EWCA案例後修正的進步性判斷：

(a) Identify the notional "person skilled in the art", (b) Identify the relevant common general knowledge of that person;
Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question or if that cannot readily be done, construe it;
Identify what, if any, differences exist between the matter cited as forming part of the "state of the art" and the inventive concept of the claim or the claim as construed;
Viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention as claimed, do those differences constitute steps which would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art or do they require any degree of invention?

Pozzoli Spa v BDMO SA & Anor (2007) EWCA Civ 588案例討論：

系爭專利：
EP1962288（相對美國專利US7766160）
揭露一種放多片光碟片的容器，包括有容器本身，有多個凹槽，可以放至少兩片光碟，兩個凹槽隔開，互相沿著週邊相疊，藉此可以間隔在有限的空間內擺入至少兩片光碟。

以下為歐洲版Claim 1，特徵在最後兩三行，容器的第一區域與第二區域的邊緣部份疊合，如附圖。
1. A container for a plurality of discs and the like, comprising a containment body which defines at least one recess for accommodating at least two discs, said recess defining a first region for accommodating at least one first disc and at least one second region for accommodating at least one second disc which is arranged at a higher level than said first region, means for the central retention of each of said discs being further provided in order to retain them detachably in said recess,

characterized in that said means for the central retention of said at least one second disc are arranged at said upper level and are superimposed on and spaced from at least one peripheral portion of said first region for accommodating said at least one first disc.

Pozzoli是個音樂內容提供廠商，先為侵權告訴人，相關的專利為一種存放多個光碟片的容器，這種容器宣稱解決過去存放光碟的容器為了要隔開相鄰光碟而過高的問題，專利先在地方法院被認定無效，但即便有效，也被判侵權不成立。

Pozzoli於是上訴到英國上訴法院，之後如上述被認定專利不具進步性（inventive step），被認為是顯而易知的技術（obvious）（經查，這類光碟收納的專利還頗多的！）。

比如：
引證案之一：EP 0676763（優先權日：1994年7月15日）