【作者】 何晓平；

【导师】 张玉敏；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 等同侵权是专利侵权行为中的一种重要类型。本文通过对几个主要国家的专利等同侵权理论发展历史的考察,论述了等同侵权理论的必要性,结合案例实践,梳理、比较了各国、各地区的等同侵权理论及相关问题,并对我国等同侵权制度的完善提出了参考建议。正文共分为六章,内容如下:第一章考察了美、英、德、日四个国家等同侵权理论的发展历史。在权利要求制度还没有建立起来的专利制度早期,美国的等同侵权理论——等同原则就已经萌芽。1836年,美国专利法中虽然引入了权利要求制度,但其并不具有独立的地位。在这一时期,等同原则正式出现在了判例中,成为确定专利保护范围的主要理论。1870年,随着美国专利法转向周边限定理论,与之相冲突的等同原则随之衰落。由于僵硬的周边限定理论无法公平保护专利权人的利益,难以充分实现专利制度的激励功能,美国联邦最高法院通过1950年的Graver案和1997年的Warner-Jenkinson案,最终确立了等同原则在美国专利制度中的地位。英国是采用周边限定理论的代表,主流意见都不承认等同原则。在1980年的Catnic案之前,英国法院采用发明精髓原则来保护专利技术的等同物。1977年,英国修订了专利法,并通过Catnic案确立了目的解释论,以符合《欧洲专利公约》的有关要求。目的解释论能够突破权利要求用语字面含义,将那些对发明的实施没有实质性影响的等同变化物纳入专利保护范围之中。与英国的实践相反,德国法院在充分回报专利权人贡献的指导思想下,通过“一般发明构思”理论,长期宽泛地适用等同原则。为与《欧洲专利公约》的规定相一致,德国于1980年修订了专利法,规定权利要求是确定专利保护范围的根本基础,法院以等同物对于发明所属领域技术人员而言是否显而易见为标准,来确定其是否落入专利保护范围。由于模仿、学习国外先进技术的需要,日本法院长期以来采用“发明人认识限制”理论,并不积极适用等同原则。随着国内技术水平的不断提高,为顺应产业界的呼声及国际专利制度的发展趋势,日本最高法院在1998年的“环形滑动滚珠花键轴承”案中,最终肯定了等同原则的地位。第二章论述了等同侵权理论的必要性问题。由于专利权的保护对象是一种信息,具有非物质性的特点,公众无法采用判定物权保护范围的传统方法来判断专利权的保护范围。于是在专利制度的发展历史上,先后采用说明书和权利要求书来作为确定专利权保护范围的法律工具。说明书最早出现在英国,1734年左右,申请专利时需要提交说明书就已经成为一种惯例。然而,说明书的内容庞杂多变,根据它来确定的专利保护范围往往很难操作。有鉴于此,实践中又出现了由申请人提出专利保护范围的权利要求书制度。1836年,美国专利法第一次对专利权利要求进行了规定。由于客观条件的限制,申请人无法撰写出一份能够涵盖发明所有变化情形的权利要求书,为防止第三人通过等同物方式窃取发明实质,公平保护专利权人的利益,充分实现专利制度的激励功能,所以必须将发明等同物纳入专利权的保护范围之中。对此,世界各国、各地区已经基本形成共识。第三章主要探讨了等同侵权判定的比较对象、判据和时间标准等问题。由于整体等同论并不认为权利要求中的每一个技术特征对于专利保护范围的确定都是至关重要,这就必然与权利要求界定发明和告知公众专利保护范围的功能相冲突,因此在1997年的Warner-Jenkinson案中,美国联邦最高法院否定了整体等同论,确立了全部技术特征规则。这一规则也得到了多数国家、地区的认可。各国关于等同侵权判定的判据并不相同,如美国采用功能、方式、效果三部测试法、非实质性差异测试法,德国采用显而易见性测试法等。这些判据各有优劣。美国联邦最高法院在1997年的Warner-Jenkinson案中指出,不同的判据也许适合不同的案件,这要根据案件的具体案情而定。等同侵权判定时间标准的选择直接影响等同范围的大小。从目前世界各国的实践来看,主要有专利申请日和侵权行为日两种标准。总体而言,侵权行为日说已经成为主流标准。第四章主要探讨了与禁止反悔原则相关的问题。禁止反悔原则是限制专利等同范围不合理扩张的一种重要手段,其实质在于防止专利权人采取出尔反尔的伎俩,先在专利授权或维持程序中为了满足有关法律要求而对专利保护范围进行限制,后在侵权诉讼时又企图取消先前所作限制、扩大专利保护范围,从而两头得利。目前,各国、各地区对禁止反悔原则的认识还不尽相同。美国适用禁止反悔原则的实践虽然源远流长,但该原则的理论基础仍然众说纷纭。在2002年的Festo案中,美国联邦最高法院指出,在专利审批过程中,申请人为满足任何可专利性的条件而限制性地修改权利要求的行为或意见陈述,都会导致禁止反悔原则的适用。如果限制性修改行为的原因不明时,则推定其与可专利性条件相关而适用禁止反悔原则。关于禁止反悔的范围,美国联邦最高法院主张采用可推翻的完全禁止准则。另外,美国联邦巡回上诉法院还确立了捐献规则,主张申请人在说明书中所公开的技术内容,如果没有写入权利要求中,则应当被视为捐献给了社会公众,不能通过等同原则再纳入专利保护范围之中。也有观点进一步主张可预见性规则,认为专利权人不能将申请时已经能够预见到的、可以写入却又未写入权利要求中的技术内容,通过等同原则再纳入专利保护范围之中。第五章主要探讨了与公知技术抗辩相关的问题。与禁止反悔原则一样,公知技术抗辩也是限制专利等同范围不合理扩张的一种重要手段。由于一项发明只有在具备了新颖性、创造性和实用性的前提下,才有可能被授予专利权,因此一项专利权的权利要求无论经过怎么解释,或者通过适用等同原则向外扩张,都不能将属于公知技术范围的技术内容纳入专利保护范围之中。公知技术抗辩既可以适用于相同侵权诉讼中,也可以适用于等同侵权诉讼中。在适用公知技术抗辩时,被告所采用的公知技术应当是一个完整的技术方案,并且数量一般为一项公知技术,或者是一项公知技术与所属领域公知常识的简单组合。在公知技术抗辩中,无需考虑被告实施技术与专利技术之间的关系,只需比较被告实施技术与公知技术之间的关系,即可判断公知技术抗辩是否成立。另外,公知技术抗辩与侵权判断在时间上并没有固定的先后顺序,由法院根据个案事实,遵循诉讼经济原则而定。第六章回顾了我国等同侵权制度的发展历史,并提出了具体的完善建议。我国建立专利制度虽然较晚,但从专利法实施以来,等同原则在我国司法实践中就已经得到了承认。2001年,相关司法解释对等同原则作出了规定,使得我国的等同侵权实践有了明确依据。然而,司法解释的相关规定还比较原则,对有些问题并未作出明确规定,不利于我国法院等同侵权判定司法标准的统一。本文根据前几章的探讨,提出了我国等同侵权制度在全部技术特征规则、侵权行为日标准、可预见性规则等方面的完善建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Equivalents infringement is an important type of patent infringement.This dissertation goes down the historical developments of theory of equivalents infringement in some major countries in the first place.Then through combining of cases practice,it discusses the necessities of the theory,and has a carding and comparative study on this subject of different countries.At last,it puts forward its own opinions about how to ameliorate patent equivalents infringement system of our country.The dissertation consists of six chapters as follows:Chapter 1 studies the historical developments in theory of equivalents infringement including US,UK,Germany and Japan.During the early period of US patent system when the patent claim wasn’t established,the theory of equivalents infringement——doctrine of equivalents had germinated.In 1836,though the patent claim was introduced into US patent law,it hadn’t the independent legal status.During this time,the doctrine of equivalents had been applied in cases and became the main theory which measured the patent protection scope. In 1870,the US patent law converted to the peripheral definition theory which leaded the doctrine of equivalents decling.As the peripheral definition theory was so rigid that it could not justly protect the benefits of patentees and realize the stimulation function of patent system,the US Supreme Court ultimately established the status ofthe doctrine of equivalents in the Graver(1950)and the Warner-Jenkinson(1997).In UK,the mainstream views do not accept the doctrine of equivalents.Before the Catnic(1980),the doctrine of pith and marrow was used to protect the equivalents of patent technology.In 1977,UK revised patent laws and established purposive construction approach in the Catnic(1980) in accord with the European Patent Convention.The purposive construction approach could break through literal meaning of the wording used in the claims and put those variants having no material effect upon the way Of the invention works to the scope of patent protection.On the contrary to UK,in order to duly rewarding the inventor,German courts had an application on the doctrine of equivalents long and widely by way of the general inventive idea theory.In according to the European Patent Convention,Germany revised the patent law in 1980 which provided that patent protection scope should be determined by the terms of the claims.The courts determined whether the equivalents would fall in the patent protection scope on the standard that the equivalents had been obvious to the average skilled person in the art.Because of imitating and learning foreign advanced technology,Japan had been adopting the inventor’s recognition limitation theory.With the continuous improvement of technical level,in order to meet to the voice of industry and the development trend of international patent system,the Japanese Supreme Court ultimately confirmed the status of the doctrine of equivalents in the Ball Spline(1998).Chapter 2 concentrates on the necessities of equivalents infringement theory.As patent system protects information with non-material characteristics,the public can not determine the patent protection scope with traditional methods which determines the real rights protection scope.So in the historical development of patent system,the specification and claim were successively applied to determine patent protection scope.The specification first appeared in UK.However,the specification’s contents were so complex and varied that it was difficult to determine the patent protection scope.In view of this,the patent claim emerged in practice.In 1836,patent claim was first provided in US patent law.Restricted by the objective conditions,an applicant might not embrace all variants of the invention in the claims.In order to prevent one from seeking to pirate an invention benefit through insubstantial changes, justly protect the benefits of the patentees and realize the stimulation function of patent system,the patent protection scope must embrace equivalents to the claims described.In this regard,all countries and regions have basically formed a consensus.Chapter 3 mainly deals with the comparing matter,linguistic framework and time in determination of equivalents.Because of not holding that each element contained in a patent claim is deemed material to defining the scope of the patented invention,the "as a whole" approach inevitably conflicts with the definitional and public-notice functions of the claim.So the US Supreme Court denied the "as a whole" approach in the Warner-Jenkinson(1997) and established the all elements rule Which has also been recognized by the majority of countries and regions.The linguistic frameworks in determination of equivalents varies from country to country,such as the function-way-result tripartite test(US),the insubstantial difference test(US),the obviousness test(German),which had their own advantages and disadvantages. The US Supreme Court pointed out in the Warner-Jenkinson(1997) that different linguistic frameworks may be more suitable to different cases,depending on their particular facts.The time in determination of equivalents directly decides the scope of equivalents.Now from the current practice of various countries,there mainly are two types,one is at the time of filing date,the other is at the time of infringement and the latter has become the mainstream standards.Chapter 4 mainly discusses the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.The doctrine is an important method to prevent the equivalents scope from expanding unreasonably.It precludes a patent owner in an infringement suit from obtaining a construction of a claim that would in effect resurrect subject matter surrendered during the course of proceeding in the patent office.At present,the awareness of the doctrine still varies from country to country.The prosecution history estoppel is a doctrine engrained in US patent law,but it’s nature and purpose are not clarity.In the Festo(2002),the US Supreme Court indicated that in patent examination and approval process a narrowing amendment made to satisfy any requirement of the patent law might give rise to an estoppel.Where no explanation was established,however,the court should presume that the patent application had a substantial reason related to patentability for including the limiting element added by amendment.In those circumstances,the prosecution history estoppel would bar the application of the doctrine of equivalents as to that element.A patentee’s decision to narrow his claims through amendment might be presumed to be a general disclaimer of the territory between the original claim and the amended claim.There were some cases,however,where the amendment could not reasonably be viewed as surrendering a particular equivalent.In addition,the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit establishes the dedication rule,namely when a patent drafter discloses but declines to claim subject matter,this action dedicates that unclaimed subject matter to the public.Application of the doctrine of equivalents to recapture subject matter deliberately left unclaimed would conflict with the primacy of the claims in defining the scope of the patentee’s exclusive right.Another point of view also further advocates that the doctrine of equivalents does not capture subject matter that the patent drafter reasonably could have foreseen during the application process and not included in the claims. Chapter 5 mainly discusses the questions relevant to the defense of prior art.The defense of prior art is also an important method to prevent the equivalents scope from expanding unreasonably as same as the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel doctrine.Any invention for which a patent right may be granted must possess the characteristics of novelty, inventiveness and usefulness.Therefore no matter how a patent claim is interpreted or expanded outward through applying the doctrine of equivalents,the technical elements belonged to prior art should not be embraced in the scope of patent protection.The defense of prior art can be applied in either literal infringement litigations or equivalents infringement litigations.When applying the defense of prior art,the prior art used by the defendant must be a complete technical solution which is known as one prior art or the combination of one prior art and common senses.In the above-mentioned circumstances,the court can determine whether the defense of prior art should be established only by considering the relationship between the accused device and the prior art rather than the claim.In addition,there is no fixed sequence in time when applying the defense of prior art and infringement judgment.So the court can determine it on the facts of the case following the economic principles.Chapter 6 raises some specific proposals to improve patent equivalents infringement system of our country.Although patent system was set up late in our country,the doctrine of equivalents had been recognized since the patent law was put to implementation.In 2001,the doctrine of equivalents was provided in the relevant judicial interpretation which made a clear basis for practice.However the provisions are so simple that they are not conducive to uniform the standards of justice in determing equivalents infringement.So this dissertation raises some specific proposals to improve our country’s patent equivalents infringement system including the all elements rule,the time of infringement standard,the foreseeability principle and so on.更多还原