帳號:guest(54.227.76.180)          離開系統
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  

詳目顯示

以作者查詢圖書館館藏以作者查詢臺灣博碩士論文系統以作者查詢全國書目勘誤回報
作者姓名(中文):蔣正華
作者姓名(英文):Cheng-Hua Chiang
論文名稱(中文):美國專利法先前技術之適格性研究 -以機密性研究成果為研究標的
論文名稱(外文):Novelty Requirement of Patent in Pre-AIA -Novelty, Prior Art and Undisclosed Invention
指導教授姓名(中文):蔡鴻文
葉雲卿
指導教授姓名(英文):Hong-Wen Tsai
Yun-Ching Yeh
口試委員姓名(中文):陳皓芸
口試委員姓名(英文):Hao-Yun Chen
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣科技大學
系所名稱:專利研究所
學號:M9924006
出版年(民國):104
畢業學年度:103
學期:1
語文別:中文
論文頁數:107
中文關鍵詞:新穎性先前技術先使用權專利有效性機密性先前技術
外文關鍵詞:noveltyprior artprior use rightvalidity of patentsecret prior art
相關次數:
  • 推薦推薦:0
  • 點閱點閱:63
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏收藏:0
近年來,國際間以專利權做為建立商業市場之競爭優勢的趨勢已為同業間所廣泛採用。然而,專利權是否足以排除競爭並為企業創造具有優勢的利潤,端視其專利權能否經得起在法院中的訴訟攻防。根據統計,有越來越多的美國專利侵權訴訟在法院遭判定系爭專利無效,其中又以不符美國專利法第102條之新穎性規定作為專利權無效理由的案例最為常見。
許多專利多為實驗成果,而過去美國專利法採先發明主義,因此專利之取得並非依照申請日的先後順序,而取決於發明完成之時間。是以,未公開之研究活動是否可以視為先發明便嚴重地影響發明之可專利性。因為實驗活動及其成果倘被視為一項先前發明,則申請專利之發明的新穎性必須比對該實驗內容,以判斷所請發明是否喪失新穎性。反之,如果實驗活動及其成果無法視為先前發明,則該實驗之研究結果僅被視為秘密,申請專利無需比對該實驗內容與結果,從而不影響其新穎性。
實驗研究結果是否被視為先前發明,必須判斷是否符合美國修正前專利法第102條(g)項條文,但具體上如何適用第102條(g)項規定,必須參酌美國法院判決以決定適用之情況。
本論文主要研究實驗活動及其成果如何被認定為先發明,以及其對於新穎性之影響。為此,本論文首先針對美國修正前專利法第102條(g)項條文內容之要件進行分析。其次,本研究以數個與研究有關之專利訴訟判決探討,特別針對當爭執的專利,其專利的有效申請日落於他人之研究成果完成後,該研究成果是否可被認定為判斷新穎性之先前技術進行分析。本論文經研究所舉專利侵權訴訟判決後,發現當美國聯邦法院認為原告之專利權,如果判定該實驗研究活動被視為先前發明並符合修正前專利法第102條(g)項之要件,將使系爭專利無效,因而使原告敗訴。
另外,實驗室研究成果或活動,不論是否建立在共同研究協議下或是獨立完成,若其成果未對外公開發表或申請專利,則該實驗室之研究成果無法為第三人所得知,因為此等成果屬於秘密性資訊與技術,並不會被認定為先前技術而影響其後申請專利之發明的新穎性。如前所述,當研究活動符合專利法第102條(g)項的特定情況,將導致實驗結果被認定為先發明(prior invention),而使爭執專利因而無效。然而,這種先發明活動若是在共同研發協議下完成,情況則略有不同。依照專利法第103條(c)項,共同發明人當其中一人申請專利,則第三人不能主張其他共同發明人的研究行為屬「先發明」,而認為該申請專利有專利法102條(g)項先發明之事由,主張專利無效。
最後本論文論及,由於機密性先前技術並未公開,也未申請專利,而美國專利法在2011年修法後採發明人先申請主義,「機密性先前技術」並非專利審查必須審酌的先前技術,是以,第三人得以與「機密性先前技術」之相同技術來申請專利,此時該機密性先前技術之較早發明人因為已超過申請專利期間,故喪失申請專利的權利,僅得以先使用權抗辯其行為未侵害他人之專利權。主張先使用權抗辯排除專利權侵害需具備一定要件,研究這些要件亦有助當專利權發生侵權爭議時,得以避免巨額損害賠償。
Adopting patent rights to establish a competitive advantage in global commercial market has become trendy among competitors in recent years. However, a patent right needs to prove its validity through litigation in the court in order to successfully rule out competition and create profits for the business. According to statistics, more and more US patents have been found invalid when patent infringement cases being brought into the court. Among all the cases, 35 U.S.C. §102, pertaining to the novelty, has been frequently observed to be the reason of patent invalidity.
Many patents are directed to the results of experimental works. The United States had a “first to invent” patent system, and thus, patent acquisition depends on the time of accomplishing an invention rather than the date of filing. Consequently, undisclosed research activities may seriously make impacts on the patentability (validity) when they are deemed prior inventions. When experimental works and the outcomes are deemed prior inventions, the novelty of the invention for patent application should be determined on whether the invention is devoid of novelty in view of the experimental works. On the contrary, if the experimental works and the outcomes are not deemed prior inventions, which are only secrets, the patent application does not need to be compared with the undisclosed prior invention for novelty.
Whether experimental works can be treated as prior inventions or not depends on the fitting of individual provision into Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(g). The specific application of Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(g) should refer to precedents ruled by the U.S. court.
This paper mainly focuses on how an experimental work and the outcome are to be deemed a prior invention and the impact resulting from the finding. To achieve this, this paper firstly analyzes the provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(g); secondly, this paper studies several patent litigation cases. In particular, it is analyzed whether a study result should be deemed prior art for determining novelty when a patent has an effective filing date later than the study result. All cases raised and studied in this paper share a same finding: the U.S. courts found the patent to be invalid based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(g).
Moreover, when experimental works, either conducted under a joint research agreement or accomplished independently, have not been disclosed in public or filed for patent, the experimental works cannot be known by a third party. Since the experimental works or the outcomes can only be treated as secret information and technology, they would not be viewed as prior inventions on the ground of novelty. As mentioned above, when the scenario of an experimental work fits into pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(g), the experimental works and the outcomes would be deemed prior inventions, rendering the accused patent invalid. However, when the experimental works are conducted under a joint research agreement, the ruling may be differently made. According to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(c), when a joint-inventor files for a patent, any third party cannot assert invalidity of the patent on the ground of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(g) based on the rest of the joint-inventors’ work.
Finally, this paper discusses secret prior art which has not been disclosed nor filed for patent. The AIA established in 2011 adopts the principle of first inventor to file, hence, secret prior art is no longer considered when examining a patent application. When a third party files an application for patent that is directed to the same technology as secret prior art, the secret prior art holder can only use a prior use right to raise a plea against patent infringement if the secret prior art holder fails to file a patent application before the deadline. To assert the right of prior use against a patent infringement lawsuit has to meet certain requirements, this paper also studies the requirements in an attempt to assist secret prior art holders to avoid possible huge damages in a patent infringement case.
中文摘要Ⅰ
英文摘要IV
誌  謝VII
圖表索引X
第一章緒論 1
1.1 研究的背景與問題的動機 1
1.2 研究方法與論文架構 6
第二章美國新舊專利法第102條分析 8
2.1 美國舊專利法第102條分析 8
2.1.1 欠缺新穎性態樣 8
2.1.2 欠缺新穎性判斷要件 10
2.2 美國新專利法第102條分析 13
2.2.1 新專利法第102條 13
2.2.2 第102條修正重點 16
第三章舊專利法先發明之案例探討 24
3.1 Teva vs. AstraZeneca 25
3.1.1 事實背景 25
3.1.2 系爭專利摘錄 28
3.1.3 訴訟案歷程 29
3.1.4 一審地方法院之判決理由 29
3.1.5 上訴爭點與判決 31
3.2 The Fox Group, Inc. vs. Cree, Inc. 34
3.2.1 事實背景 34
3.2.2 系爭專利摘錄 36
3.2.3 訴訟案歷程 37
3.2.4 一審地方法院之判決理由 38
3.2.5 上訴人主張 38
3.2.6 聯邦上訴法院意見 39
3.3 Solvay vs. Honeywell 42
3.3.1 事實背景 42
3.3.2 系爭專利摘錄 45
3.3.3 訴訟案歷程 47
3.3.4 一審地方法院之判決理由 48
3.3.5 第一次上訴爭點與判決 49
3.3.6 發回地方法院重新審理專利有效性 51
3.3.7 第二次上訴爭點與判決 52
3.4 小結 54
第四章先發明與共同研究協議之探討 58
4.1 新穎性審查 58
4.2 共同開發與機密性先前技術之關係 62
4.3 小結 65
第五章新法先使用權之運作 68
5.1先使用權(Prior Use Right)基本概念 68
5.2各國對先使用權之規範 69
5.3美國AIA法案導入先使用權抗辯(Prior Use Defense) 84
5.4小結 86
第六章結論與建議 87
參考文獻 89
附  錄 92
附錄一 US RE39,502 Claims 1, 26, 42, and 52 92
附錄二 US 6,562,130 Claims 1 and 19 94
附錄三 US 6,730,817 Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 11 95
中文部分

期刊
尹守信(2005/12),淺析美國專利法上之非顯而易知性要件。《智慧財產權月刊》,84期。
王瓊忠(2011/4),淺談以先前技術抗辯專利侵權-從智慧財產法院98年度民專上字第53號談起。《專利師》,第五期。
白杰立(2013/6),專利侵權之先使用權抗辯研析-台美日制度之比較。《智慧財產權月刊》,174期。
林谷明(2007/8),先使用權之成例要件與範圍-從日本”動桁式加熱爐”發明專利之判決談起。《智慧財產權月刊》,104期。
葉雲卿(2014/6/17),從Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP案看先前技術對於美國專利新穎性判斷之影響。《北美智權報》,109期。

報紙&演講刊物
劉宗欣、馮達發(2011/12/29), 美國專利制度之重大變革。《工商時報》,A6版。
林國塘(2014/3/21), 談專利審查品質與無效抗辯成立過高之問題。
《經濟部智慧財產局》。

網路文章
林佳芳(2013/5/2),美國專利法與先申請原則調和之改革方案下的妥協方案-美國發明法案後的之先用權抗辯簡介。http://www.taie.com.tw/db/download/epaper/epaper201352163734-20130502g.pdf
(最後瀏覽日: 2014/6/24)。
金海軍(2013/12),從美國專利法第102條看發明人先申請制的實質,中國知識產權研究網,http://www.iprcn.com/IL_Lwxc_Show.aspx?News_PI=2267
(最後瀏覽日2014/6/1)。
理律法律事務所(2014),美國專利法修法事。
http://www.leeandli.com.tw/web/c/info_alertsheet.asp?id=127,
(最後瀏覽日: 2014/6/24)。
國家網路醫院(2014),rosuvastatin calcium http://hospital.kingnet.com.tw/medicine/medicine.html?medno=6s2e6y2dEs8W60==
(最後瀏覽日: 2014/6/24)。
英文部分

期刊:
Brandee N. Woolard (2014), The resurrection of the duty to inquire after therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & CO. Duke Law & Technology Review January 19, 2014.
C. Douglass Thomas (1996), Secret Prior Art – Get Your Priorities Straight!,
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Volume 9, Number 1 Winter 1996, pp.148-179.
Diane H. Crawley (2014), America Invents Act: Promoting Progress or Spurring Secrecy? University of Hawai'i Law Review.
Edward R. Kazenske (2003/12), The future of prior art searching at the United States patent and trademark office. World Patent Information, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 283-287.
Gary L. Griswold & F. Andrew Ubel (1993), Prior User Rights-A Necessary Part of a First-to-File System.The John Marshall Law Review, Vol. 26 No. 3 pp 567-592.
T. Black, G. Hayes, P. Lintz, A.F. Purcell (1997/9), Use of the internet in the USPTO for the patent examination process. World Patent Information, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 153-159.

網路文章:
Dennis Crouch & Jason Rantanen (2012/10/10), Did the AIA Eliminate Secret Prior Art? http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/10/did-the-aia-eliminate-secret-prior-art.html,
(最後瀏覽日:2014/6/24).
Leahy–Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112‐29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/20110916-pub-l112-29.pdf,
(最後瀏覽日: 2014/6/24).
Morgan Lewis LLP (2012/9), United States Patent Invalidity Study 2012. http://www.morganlewis.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publication.detail/publicationID/484033e0-f895-463e-9fde-c913e33112ce,
(最後瀏覽日: 2014/6/24).
PCT(Patent Cooperation Treaty), http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/pct_contracting_states.html,
(最後瀏覽日: 2014/6/24).
Sandra Lee & Michael Knierim (2012/3), Teva v. AstraZeneca: Secret Prior Art Under 102(g)(2), Intellectual Property Report, Volume 9 Issue 3, http://www.bakerbotts.com/file_upload/IPReport_2012_03TevavAstraZeneca.htm#page=1,
(最後瀏覽日: 2014/7/28).
WIPO (2013/10/21), Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights: Prior Use. Standing Committee on the Law of Patents, 20th session, Geneve, 2014/1/27-31, http://www.wipo.int/scp/en/exceptions/,
(最後瀏覽日: 2014/6/24).

判決:
Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Dow Chemical Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc., 267 F.3d 1334 (Fed.Cir.2001).
Dunlop Holdings, Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33, 36-37 (7th Cir. 1975).
Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., 819 F.Supp.2d 524, 537 (E.D.Va.2011).
Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., 700 F.3d 1300, 2012 WL 5935680 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 28, 2012).
Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 420.
Gillman v. Stern, 114 F.2d 28, 31 (2d Cir. 1940).
Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F. 3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Teva Pharmaceutical v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, 748 F.Supp.2d. 453, 464 (E.D.Pa.2010).
Teva Pharmaceutical v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, 661 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Solvay, S.A. v. Honeywell Specialty Materials LLC, 591 F.Supp.2d 729 (D.Del. 2008).
Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Intern. Inc., 622 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Solvay, S.A. v. Honeywell Specialty Materials LLC, 827 F.Supp.2d 358 (D.Del. 2011)
Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Intern. Inc., 742 F.3d 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1549-50 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

公司網頁:
AlliedSignal, Inc. (2014), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlliedSignal,
(最後瀏覽日:2014/6/24).
AstraZeneca (2014), http://www.astrazeneca.com/Home,
(最後瀏覽日:2014/6/24).
Cree Inc. (2014) http://www.cree.com/,
(最後瀏覽日:2014/6/24).
Solvay (2014), http://www.solvay.com/en/about-solvay/index.html,
(最後瀏覽日:2014/6/24).

專利:
RU2,065,430 at European Patent Office, http://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP,
(最後瀏覽日:2014/6/24).
USPTO Public Pair (2014), http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair,
(最後瀏覽日:2014/6/24).
全文檔公開日期:2020/01/29 (本校及區域網路)
全文檔公開日期:2020/01/29 (校外網際網路)
全文檔公開日期:2020/01/29 (國家圖書館)
電子全文
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
* *