Search

均等論為實務與學者於專利侵害判斷所確立之原則，惟最高法院過去判決被論者指未試圖建立均等論之理由與體系。最高法院102 年度台上字第1986 號判決首次將專利均等侵害之內容作實質論述，上開論述相較於美、日二國均等論見解，有其差異以及未來仍有待再加補充闡釋之處。但該判決意旨相較於過往學者所指最高法院未能建立均等論之理由與體系之問題，已做出正面之回應，對於探討我國未來均等論實務理論之發展與建構，具有重要意義。本文由美、日二國均等侵害判斷之原則及其限制之介紹說明，對照最高法院上述均等侵害之判決見解，解析上開判決所闡釋均等侵害原則在比較法上與美、日二國之差異性，包括全要件原則、申請歷史禁反言、先前技術阻卻、置換可能性、置換容易性。並就實務運用該判決原則進行均等侵害判斷時，所可能產生相關爭議問題，提出初步建議及思考方向。期能在上開判決見解基礎上，提供作為進一步於我國實務發展均等侵害原則及爭議處理之參考。 The doctrine of equivalents is an established legal rule adopted by patent infringement litigation practitioners and professors. However, the Supreme Court of Taiwan has drawn criticisms for not elaborating the theory of this doctrine and providing little guidance on how to apply this doctrine in the decisions. In response to these criticisms, the Supreme Court of Taiwan provided its first clear delineation on the doctrine of equivalents in 2013 Tai Shang No. 1986 decision, which made a meaningful stride in developing the doctrine theory in the jurisprudence of Taiwan. Taking a comparative perspective to the Taiwanese Supreme Court decision, this article discusses the doctrine of equivalents and its limits as applied in the United States and Japan to explore their differences, specifically with respect to the allelements rule, prosecution history estoppels, prior art preclusion, interchangeability and readiness of replacement among these jurisdictions. Based upon a legal analysis of the Supreme Court decision, the article concludes by presenting preliminary suggestions and possible approaches taken as references to deal with disputes yielded during application of the doctrine, along with the aim of achieving further development of the doctrine theory in the Supreme Court in Taiwan.

均等論（Doctrine of Equivalents）是決定專利侵權重要步驟之一，甚至被認為專利法中最重要的原則。實際上，由於其與專利公示作用的衝突，充滿不確定性，甚至被認為是專利法原則中，最困難且最不可預測的。當被控侵權技術超出申請專利範圍文義之外時，專利權人可依據均等論，對與專利均等之技術主張專利侵權。而判斷被控技術與專利均等的比對方式，目前我國司法實務，主要採取智慧財產局編訂之「專利侵害鑑定要點」，其中規範：若被控對象之構件，與對應申請專利範圍之要件，「係以實質相同的技術手段（Way），達成實質相同的功能（Function），而產生實質相同的結果（Result）時，則屬於該申請專利範圍要件之均等，兩者無實質差異。而所謂的實質相同，係指兩者之差異為該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者所能輕易完成者。若比對之技術手段、功能、結果其中之一有實質不同，則不適用『均等論』。而此一比對手段、功能與結果的方式，一般稱為三步測試法」。然而，「專利侵害鑑定要點」對於如何適用三步測試法，並未有夠具體的說明。本文以智慧財產法院歷來判決作實證分析，並比對美國法，探討我國司法實務上對於三步測試法進一步的適用程序與規範，檢視其中的妥適性，並提出作者之觀察與建議。 The doctrine of equivalents is one of the most difficult and unpredictable doctrines in patent law to apply. By allowing patentees to gain exclusive right beyond the literal claims in their patents, this doctrine creates tension between the adequate protection of patent right and the public notice function in the patent system. Based on the Guideline for Patent Infringement Analysis proposed by Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, to determined patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the Triple-Identity Test should be applied. Under this test, if an accused device performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result as the asserted patent, the device infringes the patent. However, the information regarding the test is insufficient in the Guideline for Patent Infringement Analysis. It fails to explain how to apply the test, how to define the Way/Function/Result, and what the sequence of applying the three factors is. Without these detailed information, it will be desirable for the public to know how the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court apply the test. This article attempts to review the practice of the test by empirical study. Especially, this article surveys the patent infringement litigations in the Intellectual Property Court and tries to analyze the test implanted in the Court. Besides, this article also provides some comments and suggestions on the test in Taiwan.

2004 年7 月1 日修正施行的台灣專利法施行細則第18 條第8 項允許專利權人無須於申請專利範圍（claim）詳細描述技術特徵的具體結構、材料或動作，僅須敘述其所欲實施之功能，並在說明書揭露實施所述之同一功能（identical function）的相對應結構、材料或動作，其權利範圍則包含該結構、材料或動作，及其均等物。此種申請專利範圍技術特徵即所謂的「手段功能」或「步驟功能」技術特徵。美國是第一個將手段（步驟）功能技術特徵（means-plus-function element）之用語規定於專利法中的國家，其實務運作已超過半世紀，並累積了相當多的判決，而台灣專利法施行細則此規定即是參照美國專利法的相關規定。台灣智慧財產局已經有核准以此種方法撰寫申請專利範圍之專利，但目前尚未有此種申請專利範圍之權利範圍應如何解釋與判斷侵害之判決。本文整理與分析美國近年來與手段功能技術特徵有關之專利糾紛案例，藉以歸納出手段功能技術特徵之字義範圍解釋與侵害判斷之準則及應注意事項，並比較法規上對手段功能技術特徵所規定之均等物與判決上所創設出來之均等論所能主張之均等物的異同。 The Paragraph 8 of Article 18 of the amended Implementing Regulations of Taiwan Patent Law, effective on July 1, 2004, introduces a new claim-drafting rule, which allows patentees to describe a claim by the function of claimed element without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof. Such kind of the claimed element, which is the so-called “means plus function element” or “step plus function element”, is construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof. United States is the first country that enacted the means plus function provision in the patent law and has operated this system for more than fifty years with numerous cases being decided. The means plus function provision in the Implementing Regulations of Taiwan Patent Law is added by reference to U.S. Patent Law. Taiwan Intellectual Property Office has issued patents having claims with means plus function elements, however, courts in Taiwan have not decided cases regarding how to construe and justify infringement for such kinds of claims. This paper analyzes the recent patent infringement cases in United States that are relevant to means plus function claims, to obtain the guidelines for determining and interpreting means plus function elements as well as for justifying infringement. The differences between the literal equivalents included in means plus-function claims and equivalents under doctrine of equivalents are also compared and discussed.

當申請專利範圍與被控物兩者之間存在非實質性差異時，即成立均等構成專利侵害。美國最高法院於Graver Tank 一案中使用了我們所熟知的功能／方式／結果三部測試法來決定實質差異，此即我們所熟知的均等論。美國最高法院更於Warner Jenkinson 一案中再一次確認均等的決定應採逐項比對的方式。 逐項測試法將比對範圍放在構成要件上有其優點，然而，透過對美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決的研究，本文發現採逐項比對的方式有其不足之處，對侵權與否之認定甚至會造成截然不同的結果。本文擬從美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院的判決，經由系爭技術層面適用均等測試之探討，指出逐項測試法不盡周延之處，同時探討均等測試採整體觀察法的必要性。 To constitute patent infringement under doctrine of equivalents, it dictates that there must present insubstantial difference between claimed invention and accusation. In Graver Tank, U.S. Surpreme Court utilized the so-called functionway-result tripartite test to characterize the equivalency. There are two approachs before CAFC: one is by element-by-element test, the other is by invention as a whole. The outcomes of infringement analysis will hinge upon what accused counterpart should be the subject of comparision. Elemental approach reveals advantages when focusing counterpart on the component basis. However, we found that this approach shows incompletely and adversely result during analysis after reviewed the rationales underlying cases before CAFC. Via technical discussion to the application of doctrine of equivalents, this article shows the incomprehensive perspective of elemental approach and explores the entirety approach as a necessity under certain circumstance.