德國新型專利是採「相對新穎性」，要撤銷德國新型專利，要用「德國國內」的先前公開使用的證據。
「德國發明案」採「絕對新穎性」，除非是「相同發明」，否則先前技術需要是發明案申請前「已公開」，如此，以下兩種情況的新型A的「公告日」都晚於發明案B的申請日，因此都不會是發明案B的先前技術。
令人最嘔的是，明明就是我先送件，只是比他人的申請案晚公開，就因此不能把他人的申請案打掉嗎？
這種狀況稱為「secret prior art」，也就是尚未公開的「衝突」前案：earlier filed but later published applications (“conflicting applications”)。
---------------------------
EPO的衝突申請案（Potentially conflicting European and international applications）：https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/b_vi_4_1.htm
情況一：所謂「衝突申請案」，可能會發生的情況是在「申請日/優先權日後18個月公開前」進行檢索時，可能會忽略一些“潛在”尚未早期公開的前案。
情況二：文件"E"（"E" documents），這是一種相對一申請案來說為"申請在前但公開在後"的"前案"，當此前案涵蓋申請案中至少一個申請專利範圍時，且僅用以新穎性比對（擬制新穎性），稱文件"E"。
（補充：雖然美國捨棄First to Invent系統，所形成的「first inventor to file」系統對於衝突申請案來說，仍採用了過去First to Invent的概念，就是申請在前公開在後的前申請案就是"前案/秘密前案"）
EPO採用「“whole of contents novelty” approach」處理"衝突申請案"，也就是衝突前案的說明書內容適用為「新穎性」的前案，可稱為「擬制新穎性」，並不是看前後案是否有重複專利，也不用等到後申請案專利範圍確定後。
補充：在美國，這類「衝突前案」可用於引證審理新穎性與非顯而易見性，這個原則不適用其他First to File的系統中。
（重要：即便美國改革法案AIA施行，但其中提供grace period的法條仍是First to Invent的概念）"Under the AIA not only are earlier filed but later published applications considered relevant for the assessment of both inventive step and novelty, as in the old first to invent system, but the grace period provisions included in Section 102(b)(1)(B) and (2)(B) also appear to import first to invent principles. "
面對上述「申請在前公開在後」的前申請案，後申請案應排除前申請案核准的專利範圍。然而，如果前申請案或專利被捨棄，或修正移除重複的範圍，就不能排除核准後申請案專利。這些原則適用法國、德國、EPC、澳洲、紐西蘭與印度。
"According to this prior claiming approach, the later applicant was required to subtract from their claims subject matter claimed in a patent granted on an earlier application. However, if the earlier application or patent was abandoned, or the claims amended to remove the overlap, there was nothing to prevent the full scope of protection being granted to the later applicant. This type of prior claiming approach to the assessment of conflicting applications was also applied in France and Germany up until the commencement of the European Patent Convention (EPC). The same approach was also used by other countries such as Australia, New Zealand and India."
---------------------------情況二：文件"E"（"E" documents），這是一種相對一申請案來說為"申請在前但公開在後"的"前案"，當此前案涵蓋申請案中至少一個申請專利範圍時，且僅用以新穎性比對（擬制新穎性），稱文件"E"。
衝突申請案是一種相對申請案來說"申請在前但公開在後"的前申請案，對「First to Invent專利系統」形成一種「秘密前案」，但對「First to File專利系統」而言，不會成為"前案"，參考資料（重要）：
https://dcc.com/app/uploads/2018/10/Article-The-problem-with-secret-prior-art.pdf（分析First to Invent系統與First to FILE系統）（補充：雖然美國捨棄First to Invent系統，所形成的「first inventor to file」系統對於衝突申請案來說，仍採用了過去First to Invent的概念，就是申請在前公開在後的前申請案就是"前案/秘密前案"）
補充：在美國，這類「衝突前案」可用於引證審理新穎性與非顯而易見性，這個原則不適用其他First to File的系統中。
（重要：即便美國改革法案AIA施行，但其中提供grace period的法條仍是First to Invent的概念）"Under the AIA not only are earlier filed but later published applications considered relevant for the assessment of both inventive step and novelty, as in the old first to invent system, but the grace period provisions included in Section 102(b)(1)(B) and (2)(B) also appear to import first to invent principles. "
面對上述「申請在前公開在後」的前申請案，後申請案應排除前申請案核准的專利範圍。然而，如果前申請案或專利被捨棄，或修正移除重複的範圍，就不能排除核准後申請案專利。這些原則適用法國、德國、EPC、澳洲、紐西蘭與印度。
"According to this prior claiming approach, the later applicant was required to subtract from their claims subject matter claimed in a patent granted on an earlier application. However, if the earlier application or patent was abandoned, or the claims amended to remove the overlap, there was nothing to prevent the full scope of protection being granted to the later applicant. This type of prior claiming approach to the assessment of conflicting applications was also applied in France and Germany up until the commencement of the European Patent Convention (EPC). The same approach was also used by other countries such as Australia, New Zealand and India."
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9a1595b2-b3b8-456b-a3c3-f8e2a3f930e3
德國專利局：https://www.dpma.de/
英文版：https://www.dpma.de/english/index.html
Examination and Grant
https://www.dpma.de/english/patents/examination_and_grant/index.html
Opposition and Revocation
https://www.dpma.de/english/patents/opposition_and_revocation/index.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言