| dc.contributor | 國立政治大學法律學系 | en_US |
| dc.contributor | 行政院國家科學委員會 | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 沈宗倫 | zh_TW |
| dc.date (日期) | 2011 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 26-Nov-2012 09:38:47 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 26-Nov-2012 09:38:47 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 26-Nov-2012 09:38:47 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/55950 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 由於專利文義侵害的認定涉及「申請專利範圍」的解釋問題，向來為各國專利法所高度重視。關於「申請專利範圍」的解釋，現今有三個重要議題，值得特別探討。首先，「申請專利範圍」的解釋的證據來源爭議極待釐清。亦即究應以專利的「內部證據」作為主要解釋來源，抑或以「外部證據」為優先？關於此點，美國專利法判例法的發展值得我國借鏡。再者，「申請專利範圍」與「專利說明書」的其他記載間是否存在一定的解釋關係？尤其當「專利說明書」的其他記載具有「申請專利範圍」所無的要件時，究竟應以「專利說明書」的其他記載作為限定「申請專利範圍」解釋的證據，或者直接忽略「專利說明書」的其他記載，而逕以「申請專利範圍」為基準以解釋權利範圍？此議題乃與專利權利範圍界定有關，本研究將由專利法理論與政策著手，探求專利權利範圍的解釋方針。最後，本研究所關注的問題乃新興科技對「申請專利範圍」解釋的影響？進一步而言，「申請專利範圍」的解釋是否及於專利申請後的新興科技內容？若為肯定的答案，其解釋範圍又應為何？本研究試圖從發明者誘因的確保與累積創新的鼓勵二方面的利益衡量，探討此一議題。 | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | Patent literal infringement is determined by interpretation of claims. There are three issues around interpretation of claims. Firstly, it is necessary to clarify the evidentiary sources for interpretation of claims. In other words, while the court interprets patent claims for determination of literal infringement, the precondition for this interpretation is to inquiry whether the internal evidence or external one should primarily dominate interpretation of claims. This applicant believes that the development of U.S. patent case law on this issue has provided precious lesson for resolution of the same issue in Taiwanese patent law. Secondly, on interpretation of claims, it is also worth discussing the relationship between claims and specification. Especially, if the written description under specification is narrower than claim’s, it is difficult to find out an approach to reconcile their difference. It is not sure whether the specification should be used to be a limitation of the claim, or whether the specification should be ignored. We are prepared to proceed in this issue through the patent policy and jurisprudence to seek the guideline for claim interpretation. Finally, the issue of after-rising technologies is also our focus. This issue is reflected in whether claim interpretation should cover some after-rising technologies never happening at that time when the patent application was filed. We will be examining this issue form balance of interests between assurance of inventors’ motivation and encouragement of accumulated innovation. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 基礎研究 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 學術補助 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 研究期間:10008~ 10107 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 研究經費:398仟元 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 行政院國家科學委員會 | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 計畫編號NSC100-2410-H004-192 | - |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 專利文義侵害;申請專利範圍;專利說明書;專利審查記錄;先前技術;周邊界定主義;中心界定主義;內部證據;外部證據;文義解釋派;體系解釋派 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Literal Infringement;Claims;Specification;Prosecution History;Prior Art;Peripheral Definition System;Central Definition System;External Evidence;Internal Evidence;Literalism;Contextualism | - |
| dc.title (題名) | 專利文義侵害的認定—以美國法為借鏡探討「申請專利範圍」的解釋 | zh_TW |
| dc.title.alternative (其他題名) | Determination of Literal Infringement of Patent—Study of Interpretation of Patent Claims on a Comparative Base of U.S. Patent Law | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | report | en |
