Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Other Titles:||Study on Practicing Prior Art Defense to Patent Infringement Charge|
Patent infringement;Limitation under DOE;Prior art defense
|Issue Date:||2016-08-31 17:09:58 (UTC+8)|
|Abstract:||於專利侵權訴訟中，被告雖有多種防禦方法可運用，如主張專利不侵權、專利無效、專利權效力不及、 先前技術阻卻或進行專利迴避設計等，然每一種防禦方 法都有其適用的限制，有鑑於先前技術阻卻侵權的情形 普遍為國際間所接受，惟於學理上與實務操作上卻有分 歧，例如：阻卻適用時機究竟應於文義侵害之後或均等 侵害之後、先前技術之範圍應否包含申請在先核准公告 在後的專利、先前技術與待鑑定物之比對判斷方式為\r 何、應否於專利法中直接規定實施先前技術者不構成侵 害系爭專利權，凡此種種，皆攸關侵權判斷結果。因此，\r 可預見的是，對於技術發展日趨成熟的產業而言，以先 前技術抗辯不侵權的運用在未來訴訟攻防中將扮演重要 的角色。 對此，本文擬就我國現行相關規範之不足及實務操 作之歧異，予以歸納整理，並就實施先前技術不構成侵 害系爭專利權之規定應否納入專利法提出建議，以及建 議修改先前技術阻卻成立要件之規定，希冀能提供實務 運作上有客觀判斷之依據，以及更為明確的適用參考。|
In a patent infringement charge, though the defendant can adopt various strategies, such as non-infringement allegation, patent invalidation attack, non-applicable defense to patent right effect, practicing prior art defense or design around, each of the strategies has its own restriction. Practicing prior art defense to patent infringement charge is acceptable in many countries; however, divarications between the theory and the practical operation thereof exist. For example, whether the appropriate time point of introducing the practicing prior art bar in an infringement analysis should be after the literal infringement determination or Doctrine of Equivalent determination, whether the prior art should cover the disclosure in a patent application that is filed prior to the filing date of the disputed patent and laid-open or published for grant after the aforesaid filing date, the test of comparing and connecting the prior art and the accused product, and whether the practicing prior art forming a bar against a patent infringement charge shall be provided in Patent Act are still under argument. However,these points of view will in fact dominate the judgement on a patent infringement analysis. It is predicable that the practicing prior art defense will play an important role in a patent litigation in the near future for an industry having well-developed technologies. In light of the above, the domestic regulations relating to the practicing prior art defense and the above-mentioned divarications are collected and summarized in this paper. On the other hand, an opinion concerning whether the practicing prior art forming a bar against a patent infringement charge shall be introduced into Patent Act is presented in this paper. In addition, a suggestion of amending the requirements for establishing the practicing prior art bar is also provided in this paper so as to hopefully build up an objective guide that can be followed in practical operation.
|Relation:||政大智慧財產評論, 8(2), 1-38|
NCCU Intellectual Property Review
|Appears in Collections:||[智慧財產評論] 期刊論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.