2012年9月3日 星期一

歐洲專利法規-關聯分割案


筆記

Rule 36
(歐洲分割案應於歐洲審查單位發出第一次通知後24個月內提出,或是第一次提出不符單一性Art.82核駁通知後24個月內提出)(updated on Dec. 20, 2013, 歐洲專利修法自2014年4月起的分割案不限24個月,http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/11/blog-post_7333.html)

European divisional applications Art. 14, 76, 78, 79, 94
(1) The applicant may file a divisional application relating to any pending earlier European patent application, provided that:
(a) the divisional application is filed before the expiry of a time limit of twenty-four months from the Examining Division's first communication under Article 94, paragraph 3, and Rule 71, paragraph 1 and 2, or Rule 71, paragraph 3, in respect of the earliest application for which a communication has been issued, or
(b) the divisional application is filed before the expiry of a time limit of twenty-four months from any communication in which the Examining Division has objected that the earlier application does not meet the requirements of Article 82, provided it was raising that specific objection for the first time.

分割案規定後相關法條:
Article 14(1)
(歐洲專利官方語言有英文、法文與德文)
The official languages of the European Patent Office shall be English, French and German.


Article 76 European divisional applications
(根據歐洲專利法施行細則,分割案專利標的不能超出原母案揭露內容,取得原母案申請日的優勢;母案所指定進入的國家,分割案也適用)
(1) A European divisional application shall be filed directly with the European Patent Office in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. It may be filed only in respect of subject-matter which does not extend beyond the content of the earlier application as filed; in so far as this requirement is complied with, the divisional application shall be deemed to have been filed on the date of filing of the earlier application and shall enjoy any right of priority.
(2) All the Contracting States designated in the earlier application at the time of filing of a European divisional application shall be deemed to be designated in the divisional application.


Article 94 Examination of the European patent application
(實際審查應付費才會執行;如果沒有即時提出實審請求,申請案將被撤回;如果審查結果認定並未符合專利法,申請人可提出意見,並修改;如果申請人未即時提出回應,申請案被撤回)
(1) The European Patent Office shall, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations, examine on request whether the European patent application and the invention to which it relates meet the requirements of this Convention. The request shall not be deemed to be filed until the examination fee has been paid.
(2) If no request for examination has been made in due time, the application shall be deemed to be withdrawn.
(3) If the examination reveals that the application or the invention to which it relates does not meet the requirements of this Convention, the Examining Division shall invite the applicant, as often as necessary, to file his observations and, subject to Article 123, paragraph 1, to amend the application.
(4) If the applicant fails to reply in due time to any communication from the Examining Division, the application shall be deemed to be withdrawn.

Rule 71 Examination procedure
(審查委員可要求申請人限期提出缺陷修正;審查單位的審查意見應包括核駁理由;專利獲准前,應通知申請人付費公告,並要求4個月內提出另外兩個官方語言(審查時已經針對一種語言))
(1) In any communication under Article 94, paragraph 3, the Examining Division shall, where appropriate, invite the applicant to correct any deficiencies noted and to amend the description, claims and drawings within a period to be specified.
(2) Any communication under Article 94, paragraph 3, shall contain a reasoned statement covering, where appropriate, all the grounds against the grant of the European patent.
(3) Before the Examining Division decides to grant the European patent, it shall inform the applicant of the text in which it intends to grant it and of the related bibliographic data. In this communication the Examining Division shall invite the applicant to pay the fee for grant and publishing and to file a translation of the claims in the two official languages of the European Patent Office other than the language of the proceedings within four months.

Article 82 Unity of invention
(申請案中所載發明應符合同一廣義技術概念下的單一性要求)
The European patent application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept.

Rule 39 Designation fees
(歐洲檢索報告公開後6個月內應繳付國家指定費(固定),如果未繳費,該案視同撤回;已繳指定費不得要求退費)
(1) The designation fee shall be paid within six months of the date on which the European Patent Bulletin mentions the publication of the European search report.
(2) Where the designation fee is not paid in due time or the designations of all the Contracting States are withdrawn, the European patent application shall be deemed to be withdrawn.
(3) Without prejudice to Rule 37, paragraph 2, second sentence, the designation fee shall not be refunded.

Ron
先前文章:

2012年8月31日 星期五

常用的日本專利法二

可先參閱常用的日本專利法一(核駁常用)
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/12/blog-post_29.html
其他參考:
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/01/blog-post_10.html
修法概要:
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/07/blog-post_8188.html
日本單一性:
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/11/blog-post_17.html
日本分割案:
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/10/blog-post_04.html

[來源是英文版]
日本專利法第17條(2)(3):專利申請中的修正、誤譯更正不得超出原說明書、請求項與圖示的範圍。
(3) Except in the case where the said amendment is made through the submission of
a statement of correction of an incorrect translation, any amendment of the
description, scope of claims or drawings under paragraph (1) shall be made within
the scope of the matters described in the description, scope of claims or drawings
originally attached to the application(in the case of a foreign language written
application under Article 36-2(2), the translation of the foreign language
documents as provided in Article 36-2(2) that is deemed to be the description,
scope of claims and drawings under Article 36-2(4) (in the case where the
amendment to the description, scope of claims or drawings has been made through
the submission of the statement of correction of an incorrect translation, the said
translation or the amended description, scope of claims or drawings))
(新修法對於修正的限制有些放寬,如果是說明書內容隱含的技術事項,可被允許修正補入)

日本專利法第17條(2)(4):不允許「位移補正」,也就是修正僅限於補入符合單一性規定的技術特徵,不得引入不符單一性而被撤回(或分割)的內容。
(4) In addition to the case provided in the preceding paragraph, where any
amendment of the scope of claims is made in the cases listed in the items of
paragraph (1), the invention for which determination on its patentability is stated
in the notice of reasons for refusal received prior to making the amendment and
the invention constituted by the matters described in the amended scope of claims
shall be of a group of inventions recognized as fulfilling the requirements of unity
of invention set forth in Article 37.

日本專利法第36條(4):專利說明書揭露內容應清楚,並能讓發明技術領域通常知識者可以據以實施。
(4) The statement of the detailed explanation of the invention as provided in item
(iii) of the preceding Paragraph shall comply with each of the following items:
(i) in accordance with Ordinance of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry,
the statement shall be clear and sufficient as to enable any person ordinarily
skilled in the art to which the invention pertains to work the invention; and


日本專利法第36條(6):請求項界定的範圍記載應符合(i)應被詳細說明所支持;(ii)應明確(請求項所界定的各元件之間應有明確的關聯);(iii)簡明;(iv)描述內容應符合經濟部工業局的相關法令。
(6) The statement of the scope of claims as provided in paragraph (2) shall comply
with each of the following items:
(i) the invention for which a patent is sought is stated in the detailed explanation
of the invention;
(ii) the invention for which a patent is sought is clear;
(iii) the statement for each claim is concise; and
(iv) the statement is composed in accordance with Ordinance of the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry.

日本專利法第37條(參考施行細則第25-8條):一個專利申請案記載了兩或多個發明(兩或多個獨立項),各發明之間應符合單一性(unity of invention)要求。
Two or more inventions may be the subject of a single patent application in the
same application provided that, these inventions are of a group of inventions
recognized as fulfilling the requirements of unity of invention based on their
technical relationship designated in Ordinance of the Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry.
(一件專利申請案中主張兩個以上的發明之間應具有共同的特定技術特徵(STF),而判斷STF是判斷是根據該項的新穎性,各項之間具有新穎的技術特徵為STF。因此,日本案提供之前應有前案檢索,以確保獨立項之間具有共同且有新穎性的STF,以免不符單一性的要求。並且,日本專利申請案答辯期間不能將最初判斷不具單一性的技術特徵轉移到目前答辯中的專利範圍中,因此修正十分受限。)

Ron
資料參考:SHIGA International Patent Office 演講稿

2012年8月28日 星期二

歐洲分割案的期限筆記

筆記

歐洲審查基準(Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office)1.1.1.2中規範了主動分割申請案的規定(Voluntary division,Part A Guidelines for Formalities Examination)

主要是規定基於一個申請母案的申請日所提出的後續分割案,應於審查單元提出第一次官方意見(first communication)後24個月內提出主動分割案。其中第一次官方意見不包括「檢索通知(notification of search opinion)」等並無對申請案技術回應的通知。計算官方意見日期時,前後可以有10日的彈性。如果過了這段時間,或是在第一次官方意見提出前撤回申請案,則不能再申請分割案;若第一次官方意見有誤,則不列入期限計算。

有關施行細則Rule 36(1)(a)的規定可參閱:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/04/epo.html


歐洲審查基準1.1.1.3中規範了強制分割申請案的規定(Mandatory division)

此段規範在歐洲審查單位審理申請母案時提出不符EPC第82條單一性規定(unity of invention)的核駁理由時,可自此單一性核駁理由提出後24個月內提出分割案,此稱為強制分割案(非主動)。此單一性核駁理由設為此類核駁的第一次官方意見。

其中更說明,如果此遇到不符單一性核駁理由而產生的「強制」分割案可能已經晚於之前主動分割案的期限,仍可依據較晚的期限提出分割案。

此類期限起算日包括:第一次提出單一性核駁的意見,包括任何在國際階段、歐洲階段、補充審查階段提出的單一性問題;提出相關單一性議題的口審階段(oral proceedings);任何相關單一性議題的電話詢問、面詢等日期。另外,提出審查意見,並提出單一性議題的日期不列入計算,因為審查委員尚未對申請案提出回應。

如果有不同不符單一性規定的理由相繼提出,前述24個月的期限會因不同的核駁理由重新計算。

(updated on Jan. 18, 2016)歐洲分割案修法:
"根據歐洲專利局的行政理事會(Administrative Council)的修正方案,於2014年4月1日當日或之後所提出的專利分割案,不用受上述24個月的時間限制,也就是在母案仍在懸宕時,任何時間都可以提出基於母案申請日的專利分割案。"

Ron

2012年8月27日 星期一

Trade Dress(外觀商標)


T.M.E.P. § 1202.02 Registration of Trade Dress

Trade Dress(姑且翻譯為外觀商標)是針對產品的一種非功能性的特徵的商標,包括物品與服務,特別是產品的包裝顏色、設計。在網站http://www.amerilawyer.com/trademark/tm_tradedress.htm#1提出幾個知名的的Trade Dress,這些物品直覺就會讓人想到相對的企業,這就是Trade Dress的作用:



TMEP(商標審查手冊)1202.02規範外觀商標(Trade Dress)的註冊

申請人可以為一產品的設計、包裝、顏色或是其他物品、服務的外觀提出外觀商標註冊,提出申請時,TMEP提出了個Trade Dress所考慮的議題(updated on Aug. 28, 2012):
(1) 功能性(functionality);
(2) 特殊性/識別性(distinctiveness)updated on Apr. 12, 2016。

相關審查基準要求分別針對這兩樣課題作出審理,僅有「非功能性的特殊外觀商標」才是Trade Dress所保護的客體。

本章1202.02(b)界定出Trade Dress的特殊性(Distinctiveness of Trade Dress)

提到Wal-Mart商店與Samara Brothers公司的一個判例,最高法院在此判例中區分有兩種態樣的Trade Dress:產品設計(product design)與產品包裝(product packaging)。
如果一個trade dress申請案無關是產品設計,不可能有特殊性(it can never be inherently distinctive),而所謂產品設計與包裝有時是難以區分的,實際上的判斷有許多模糊空間。

1202.02(c)則規範出特殊性與功能性為兩個不同的議題(Distinctiveness and Functionality are Separate Issues),也為審理Trade Dress申請案所需要考慮的議題,而申請人的答辯也應分別答覆。
如果審查委員判斷出相關的商標申請案的特殊性為功能性的,審查委員在作出判斷時,即便該申請案在功能性上被否決,仍應判斷其中特殊性是否足夠。但此時,這類申請案仍會被否決。

1202.02(d)規範外觀商標申請的圖形與描述(Drawing and Description of Mark in Trade Dress Applications)

以一立體商標來看,申請人應提出商標描繪的圖案,包括產品與包裝,可以虛線表示不要保護的部份。另應附陳述內容表示要註冊部份的描述,描述商標的組成。

Ron

Apple在這一階段"設計相關"的訴訟勝了Samsung

這個週末科技業的大新聞就是Apple勝訴,美國加州地方法院(San Jose)陪審團認定Samsung侵犯Apple的六件有關使用者介面與操作的專利,甚至根據Samsung內部文件證明是一種蓄意侵害(willful/intentional infringement)!

這跟一般技術上的侵權專利很不相同,一旦電路、通訊技術成為一種標準外,手機廠商將可合理透過買賣或是加入特定標準協會取得授權,反而不容易落入侵權官司,而且侵權涉及的技術層面頗為複雜。但是這件有關設計的侵權官司確實是Samsung難以迴避的痛!除了歷歷在目的各種證據、媒體、被公開的內部文件、Apple為最初原告、Apple的商業成功、戰場在美國本土等因素,Apple取得的「使用者經驗」相關的專利也確實成為各種裝置的學習(抄襲)的一種另類「標準」,也確實容易影響陪審團大人們的「主觀意識」與心證。

媒體都說是Android陣營最大的挫敗,但Apple也非全贏,也沒有拿到預計的20億美元這麼多(決定為$1,051,855,000),但已經大大影響加入此開放源碼計畫的廠商的將來走向。

最後陪審團的決定交給法官時,作出以下判決:http://www.scribd.com/doc/103860673/12-08-24-Apple-Samsung-Amended-Jury-Verdict

其中列舉涉及侵權的各Samsung裝置,比如認定侵害美國專利第 7469381 號的Claim 19有以下"Yes" or "Y"的產品,全部侵權:
US7469381Claim 19:
19. A device, comprising:
a touch screen display;
one or more processors;
memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the programs including:
instructions for displaying a first portion of an electronic document;
instructions for detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;
instructions for translating the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting the movement;
instructions for displaying an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, in response to the edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display; and
instructions for translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display.


認定侵害美國專利第 7844915 號的Claim 8有以下"Yes" or "Y"的產品,並不是所有的產品都侵權:
US7844915案的Claim 8:

8. A machine readable storage medium storing executable program instructions which when executed cause a data processing system to perform a method comprising:
receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to a touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the data processing system;
creating an event object in response to the user input;
determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation;
issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the scroll or gesture operation;
responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by scrolling a window having a view associated with the event object; and
responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by scaling the view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input points in the form of the user input.

 

認定侵害美國專利第 7864163 號的Claim 50有以下"Yes" or "Y"的產品(這是一個左右滑動瀏覽的技術):
US7864163Claim 50:

50. A portable electronic device, comprising:
a touch screen display;
one or more processors;
memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including:
instructions for displaying at least a portion of a structured electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein the structured electronic document comprises a plurality of boxes of content;
instructions for detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the structured electronic document;
instructions for determining a first box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first gesture;
instructions for enlarging and translating the structured electronic document so that the first box is substantially centered on the touch screen display;
instruction for, while the first box is enlarged, a second gesture is detected on a second box other than the first box; and
instructions for, in response to detecting the second gesture, the structured electronic document is translated so that the second box is substantially centered on the touch screen display.



認定侵害美國設計專利第 D618,677 號


認定侵害美國設計專利第 D593,087 號


認定侵害美國設計專利第 D604,305 號


另針對Samsung反訴上述列舉的Apple專利無效為"無理由":

對於Samsung欲證明Apple提出的註冊的iPhone trade dress D983沒有保護力,結果被否定,也就造成Samsung被判斷侵害Apple iPhone的外觀設計:
Apple的非登記型的iPhone Trade Dress相對有效:
因為對於登記或非登記型的Trade Dress在iPhone的角度,Samsung判斷為侵權,對於iPad則沒有:

各Samsung產品的損害賠償明細:

反倒是,Samsung對Apple產品提出的侵權告訴全部都失敗:


全文:
12-08-24 Apple-Samsung Amended Jury Verdict

這幾天消息頗多,但是是否定論,應該還有後續上訴的劇情!

Ron
資料參考:FOSS Patents, Scribd
相關部落格文章:
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/07/20.html
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/08/apple.html

2012年8月24日 星期五

Apple結辯,投影片整理

翻成"結辯"可能好一點!

Apple對於此段在San Jose地方法院與Samsung的辯論到終了,Apple在尾辯(closing arguments)中持續強調Samsung在iPhone發表之後所作出的決定就是日後嚴重抄襲iPhone設計的產品的決定,包括軟體與硬體的設計。

投影片(本文下方)中顯示了整個iPhone的設計歷程,因此頗有看頭,甚至可以成為一般侵權比對的參考與教材,特別是設計專利方面。
其中引用了Samsung首席設計師提出的工作內容、電子郵件等,以至於產生極為類似iPhone的手機設計。自然,自從Samsung作出了與iPhone設計相似的產品之後,Samsung的佔有率扶搖直上,這成為Apple公司想要求償的損害參考。

對於Apple極為看中的設計專利來看,也沒有放過,圖式顯示Samsung手機與設計專利的圖示十分接近,平板的設計也是有接近的邏輯。

Apple提出了損害賠償的證據就是來自Samsung疑似侵權物的獲利,認為過去Samsung已經販售2千萬支侵權產品,包括手機與平板,其中收入有80億美元,因此Apple求償包括Samsung的利潤22億美元、蘋果的損失4.8億美元以及2千萬授權金。

摘錄一些畫面:
Apple於2007年的Macworld發表iPhone第一代,2G版
 開機後首頁的圖案設計圖,抄襲?還是icon不就這樣嗎?
 外觀設計:
 手機的介面設計:
 Apple站在有利的位置理由之一就是因為擁有許多的設計專利:
 平板設計專利:
 首頁圖案的設計專利,如:D604,305 D617334(投影片D'305似乎有點錯誤)corrected on Aug. 27, 2012:
(D604,305)

 Trade Dress的表示:
Trade dress是泛指一個產品的外觀:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/04/trade-dress.html


Apple Closing

一般的看法多半是,如果Apple輸了,會出現大量的模仿與接近的手機;如果Apple贏了,Apple將追擊其他手機廠商,並迫使Android陣營的手機商作出各種多樣的產品!

Ron
資料來源:http://www.scribd.com
資料參考:http://www.cultofmac.com/186299/apple-samsung-trial-apples-closing-evidence-slides/
先前部落格文章已經有些探討,但僅針對一些有趣與可以理解的部份:
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/07/20.html
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/08/blog-post_3.html
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/08/blog-post_20.html
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/08/joy-of-techsamsung-v.html

2012年8月22日 星期三

WIPO提供PCT案的監視計畫

這是個讓第三方提供先前資料的電子送件方案,免費。


自2012年7月起,世界專利局WIPO提供一個讓第三方可以進行監視(observe)在國際申請階段(international phase)的專利案(公開案)的服務(third party observation),特別有用是讓申請人可以監視對手的專利申請狀況、瞭解先前技術的方面,並且可提出相關影響該申請案新穎性與進步性的先前技術資料。

此服務提供監視專利公開案的時間為國際申請階段中專利公開起到優先權日起算28月內的案子。免費使用,但需要登錄帳戶。

使用此第三方監視的服務由"ePCT services"進入,或可由PATENTSCOPE網頁進入,另可先開啟該案網頁的公開內容,在基本資料頁的上方會有「submit observation」的按鈕,點入會被要求登入,之後可以設定要做的事,比如上傳前案資料。


透過網頁填寫提供者的資料,與上傳資料:

最後顯示的清單與引用前案資料:
 

Ron
其他部落格文章:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/11/wipo-patentscope.html