如台灣，現行我國專利法第59條規定「發明專利權之效力"不及於"之情事」，其中第3項：「申請前已在國內實施，或已完成必須之準備者。但於專利申請人處得知其發明後未滿12個月，並經專利申請人聲明保留其專利權者，不在此限。
這項規定告訴我們幾件事：(1)主張「先使用權」，必須是申請前「已在國內實施」；或是(2)申請前「已完成必須之準備」；(3)但有排除條款：從專利申請人處得知發明後「未滿12個月」，且專利申請人聲明「保留專利權」者，表示，發明人在與他人描述發明時，應聲明保留專利權/申請權！
[台灣]
我國專利法：
如此，若有符合上述法律的條件，遇到"他人"取得相關發明的專利權的侵權爭議時，可以提出「先使用權抗辯」，使用先使用權抗辯時，參考以下TIPO專題連結，應考慮：「我國專利法規定與德國專利法相同，於適用時應注意：1、如專利申請人未聲明保留權利，則在申請日前得知者可立即實施該發明，並享有先使用權；2、如專利申請人聲明保留權利，但未在6個月（修法已改為12個月）內申請專利，則期滿後得知者可實施該發明，並享有先使用權。」
重要參考文獻：TIPO專題：專利侵權之先使用權抗辯研析—台美日制度之比較（https://www.tipo.gov.tw/public/Attachment/3631117229.pdf）
要以先使用權抗辯，根據TIPO專文描述「適格的先使用行為」，以「實施」或「已完成」為要件，其中：
「實施」：結合「第58 條」對於實施之定義，解釋上凡申請前之「製造、為販賣之要約、販賣、使用或為上述目的而進口」等行為，均得主張先使用權，而不以製造物品或使用方法為限。
「已完成」：所謂「必須之準備」必須為客觀上可被認定的事實，例如已經進行相當投資、已完成發明之設計圖或已經製造或購買實施發明所需的設備或模具等。若僅是主觀上有實施發明之準備，或為購買實施所必要之機器而有向銀行借款等準備行為，則不得謂已完成必須之準備。
「先使用權之範圍」，參考其他各國定義，對於「原本事業規模」的限制頗寬：
其他：
先使用權既然只有在專利申請前已開始使用之人始得主張，解釋上應不得任意移轉。
------------------------------------------------
美國AIA後先使用權：
前言：美國AIA之前採用「先發明主義」，已經涵蓋「先使用權」的基本概念，而且定義更寬，不必要完成事業之準備，在AIA之後的發明人的先申請主義，即可能產成「先使用」的爭議。
根據美國專利法第273(e)條規定，「先使用權」的要件是他人專利申請前「商業使用」，可能條件更為嚴格！
先使用權抗辯的要件（參考TIPO專文翻譯）：
(1)適用的人：實施，或是指示實施「先前商業使用」之個人、或受該個人控制或在其一般控制下或控制該個人之組織。
(2)「善意」，對於申請專利標的之善意商業使用行為。
(3)限制在美國國土境內，先使用權主張限定在美國境內之先使用行為。
(4)先使用行為至少發生在專利申請日或符合優惠期之公開日兩者較早之日期前1年。
(5)他人不能是有關聯者，先使用發明不得源自於專利權人或與有共同利益關係之人。
(6)限於發生先使用行為之特定申請專利標的，但不限制使用數量，並可及於未侵害其他申請專利標的之改良。
35 U.S.C. 273 Defense to infringement based on prior commercial use.
(e) LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) PERSONAL DEFENSE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—A defense under this section may be asserted only by the person who performed or directed the performance of the commercial use described in subsection (a), or by an entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with such person.
(B) TRANSFER OF RIGHT.—Except for any transfer to the patent owner, the right to assert a defense under this section shall not be licensed or assigned or transferred to another person except as an ancillary and subordinate part of a good-faith assignment or transfer for other reasons of the entire enterprise or line of business to which the defense relates.
(C) RESTRICTION ON SITES.—A defense under this section, when acquired by a person as part of an assignment or transfer described in subparagraph (B), may only be asserted for uses at sites where the subject matter that would otherwise infringe a claimed invention is in use before the later of the effective filing date of the claimed invention or the date of the assignment or transfer of such enterprise or line of business.
(2) DERIVATION.—A person may not assert a defense under this section if the subject matter on which the defense is based was derived from the patentee or persons in privity with the patentee.
(3) NOT A GENERAL LICENSE.—The defense asserted by a person under this section is not a general license under all claims of the patent at issue, but extends only to the specific subject matter for which it has been established that a commercial use that qualifies under this section occurred, except that the defense shall also extend to variations in the quantity or volume of use of the claimed subject matter, and to improvements in the claimed subject matter that do not infringe additional specifically claimed subject matter of the patent.
(4) ABANDONMENT OF USE.—A person who has abandoned commercial use (that qualifies under this section) of subject matter may not rely on activities performed before the date of such abandonment in establishing a defense under this section with respect to actions taken on or after the date of such abandonment.
(5) UNIVERSITY EXCEPTION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—A person commercially using subject matter to which subsection (a) applies may not assert a defense under this section if the claimed invention with respect to which the defense is asserted was, at the time the invention was made, owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to either an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)), or a technology transfer organization whose primary purpose is to facilitate the commercialization of technologies developed by one or more such institutions of higher education.
(B) EXCEPTION.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if any of the activities required to reduce to practice the subject matter of the claimed invention could not have been under taken using funds provided by the Federal Government.
MPEP：https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/e8r9/d0e305663.html
------------------------------------------------
依日本特許法第79 條規定，基於先使用而取得之通常實施權要件如下，特別是朝「非專屬授權」的角度保護「先使用者」（參考TIPO專文）：
(1)不知有關發明專利申請之內容而自為發明，或從不知有關發明專利申請之內容而自為該發明之人知悉。
(2)在發明專利申請時之先使用行為。
(3)在日本國內之先使用行為。
(4)實施發明之事業或為其事業準備。
(5)對於實施或準備實施之發明。
(6)在實施或準備實施之事業目的範圍內。
日本特許法第79條英文翻譯（http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?printID=&ft=1&co=01&x=32&y=19&ky=%E7%89%B9%E8%A8%B1%E6%B3%95&page=10&id=42&lvm=&re=02&vm=02）：
Article 79 A person who, without knowledge of the content of an invention claimed in a patent application, made an invention identical to the said invention, or a person who, without knowledge of the content of an invention claimed in a patent application, learned the invention from a person who made an invention identical to the said invention and has been working the invention or preparing for the working of the invention in Japan at the time of the filing of the patent application, shall have a non-exclusive license on the patent right, only to the extent of the invention and the purpose of suchbusiness worked or prepared.
所謂「事業之準備」：
至於何謂「事業之準備」，依日本最高法院昭和61 年（1986年）10 月3 日「動桁式加熱爐」事件判決之見解，係指：「不知悉有關發明專利申請之內容而自為相同內容發明者，或從前者得知者，就該發明迄今尚未達到事業的實施階段，惟具有即時實施的意圖，且該『即時實施的意圖』，客觀上有可認識之態樣、程度予以表明。」
從文中提及之案例很明確地知道何為「完成事業之準備」：
1.完成及交付試用品
2.製造及販賣受託生產製品之試作品
3.對於實施方法發明之工廠為基本設計及編製建設預算
4.著手製造金屬製的鑄型
5.從事製造醫藥品為目的之行為
參考資料：
https://legal-patent.com/international-intellectual-property/right-prior-use-german-case-law/
TIPO專題：專利侵權之先使用權抗辯研析—台美日制度之比較（https://www.tipo.gov.tw/public/Attachment/3631117229.pdf）
http://www.leeandli.com/TW/Newsletters/5886.htm
各國prior user right報告：https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ip/global/prior_user_rights.pdf
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言