作者簡介：
陳宜誠 律師
現任：北美智權教育訓練處
處長／首席研究員
經歷：
美商諾曼第燃料電池 技術長
英商英特維數位科技 董事長特助
台灣電腦專案事業部 負責人
東吳大學法律研究所 碩士
台灣大學電機研究所 碩士 |
某客戶提問：我公司新推出一項產品，遭競爭對手提告說該產品文義侵害其專利請求項(Read On Claim)，但是我們的產品與其專利內的實施例，都有所不同，這是怎麼回事？若我公司產品真的文義侵害他人的專利了，又該如何因應？ |
|
首先，專利之保護範圍，概應以其申請專利範圍（Claims）所界定者為準，與其說明書內之實施例，並無直接的相關，涉嫌侵權產品之技術特徵與該專利說明書內之實施例有所不同，無涉產品侵權與否的判斷，此點已詳如前期文章《研發人員為什麼需要知道專利侵權判斷準則》 (註1)所述，不再贅言。至於專利保護範圍與涉嫌侵權產品的比對程序，本文敘述如后。
何謂文義侵害？
專利權人若主張其專利為他人所侵害時，應先進行「各請求項與侵權物品之技術特徵對照表」（即Claim Chart，簡稱專利侵權對照表，又有稱其為索賠表）的製作。其製作步驟是，先分解專利範圍內涉及該侵權產品之各個請求項(asserted claims)，成為下述組件的組合：①構成要件(essential element)；②構成要件間之連接關係(connections)；③各構成要件所發揮之功能(function)。也就是說，專利權人須文義解讀專利範圍之技術特徵，列為一欄（Claim X Element）。
繼而，針對涉嫌侵權產品（裝置、機構或元件），專利權人須同樣的進行文義解讀，將涉嫌侵權產品之技術特徵，列為另一欄（Product Y）。然後再對Claim Chart內此兩欄技術特徵，進行「專利範圍」對「產品」之一對一比對，於Claim Chart之比較結果欄位記錄其比對結果是否相符（Yes/No）。
如下表所示，就是一個很標準的Claim Chart（以Palm Pre 產品被控侵害 Apple公司之US 7,479,949專利之第1個請求項為例），包括有三欄，最左邊為特定專利所有相關Claim的解構，中間為要涉嫌侵權產品的技術特徵，最右邊列出比對結果，即Y(Yes)或是N(No)。
| US 7,479,949 vs. Palm Pre |
專利請求項
Claim 1
Element |
產品
Palm Pre Product |
比較結果
(Y)es/(N)o |
| “A computing device, comprising:” |
The Pre contains a processor and therefore is a computing device. |
Y |
| “a touch screen display;” |
The Pre contains a touch screen display. |
Y |
| “one or more processors;” |
The Pre contains at least a TI OMAP processor, as seen in its product spec sheet attached. |
Y |
| “memory;” |
The Pre contains at least 8GB flash memory storage, as seen in its product spec sheet attached. |
Y |
| 參考：George Shaw and Samuel Choi, UC Berkeley, Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology, IEOR 190G Patent Engineering, April 20, 2009 |
有些事務所或企業習慣把Claim的原文列為一欄（Claim X Element），然後將專利權人所做之文義解釋或分析（引用專利說明書本文之部分要列明出處），列為另一欄（Interpretation）。繼而，將比較結果（一定是Y）直接記錄於涉嫌侵權產品欄之個別技術特徵列內，並在產品欄位附加佐證資料。例如下表即類同於上述專利侵權訴訟中Apple公司提交法院之Claim Chart，表明Palm公司之Palm Pre產品如何侵害其美國專利7,49,949號專利第1個請求項，請各位讀者參考。
| Apple Patent US 7,479,949 vs. Palm Pre |
| Claim 1 Element |
Interpretation |
Palm Pre Product |
| A computing device, comprising: |
A device containing a CPU. |
Y. The Pre contains a processor and therefore is a computing device. |
| a touch screen display; |
|
Y. The Pre contains a touch screen display. (See Engadget video, http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/#continued (00:12 onward) |
| one or more processors; |
|
Y. The Pre contains at least a TI OMAP processor (published specifications) |
| memory; |
|
Y. The pre contains at least 8GB flash memory storage (published specifications) |
| one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including: |
One or more programs in memory that can be executed by the CPU(s). |
Y. The Pre contains Palm WebOS program and other programs. (http://www.palm.com/us/products/phones/pre/index.html#tab2) |
| instructions for detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display; |
|
Y. It is inherent that if there is a processor and a touch screen display whereby a user can use his finger, that there must be instruction for detecting finger contacts with the touch screen. |
| instructions for applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device; |
The program instructions of the heuristic algorithms that determine the user command from the finger contact(s). ("heuristics [programs] are used to translate imprecise finger gestures into actions desired by the user." [column 109, line 50-51]) |
Y. Heuristics are generally inherent in computer programs processing inexact input, such as the movement of a touch on a touch screen. There must be instructions for the computer to apply the one or more heuristics and determine the desired command for the device from the finger contacts. |
| and instructions for processing the command; |
Program instructions that execute the user commands. |
Y. Inherently a processor-driven device uses instructions to process commands. |
| wherein the one or more heuristics comprise: |
|
|
| a vertical screen scrolling heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command rather than a two-dimensional screen translation command based on an angle of initial movement of a finger contact with respect to the touch screen display; |
A heuristic (implemented as a program) that looks for initial movement of the finger(s) and decides that strictly vertical scrolling is desired even though the finger may move off a straight path after initial contact. |
Y. The Pre uses a vertical screen scrolling heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command rather than a two-dimensional screen translation command based on the angle of initial movement of a finger contact with respect to the touch screen display. (Engadget video (00:12 to 00:22) shows apparently locked one-dimensional movement as finger movement ends more horizontal. As above, a heuristic is inherent. Engadget video (00:23) shows two-dimensional movement started with a diagonal finger movement. Thus two-dimensional movement is possible and a vertical scrolling heuristic locks the movement to prevent it.) |
| a two-dimensional screen translation heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to the two-dimensional screen translation command rather than the one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command based on the angle of initial movement of the finger contact with respect to the touch screen display; |
A heuristic (implemented as a program) that looks for initial movement of the finger(s) different from movement used for vertical scrolling and decides that some degree of diagonal (vertical and horizontal) scrolling is desired rather than strictly vertical scrolling. |
Y. The Pre uses a two-dimensional screen translation heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to the two-dimensional screen translation command rather than the one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command based on the angle of initial movement of the finger contact with respect to the touch screen display. (Engadget video (00:23) shows two-dimensional movement started with a diagonal finger movement. As above, a heuristic is inherent.) |
| and a next item heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items. |
A heuristic (implemented as a program) that looks for an unspecified finger(s) contact to move stepwise from item to item in a set rather than scroll through the set. An example reciting the text of this clam clause refers to an image in an album of images. [column 110, lines 2-6 refers to 1616, FIG. 16A] |
Y. The Pre uses a next item heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items. (Palm.com CES video shows flipping through images one by one (Chapter 4 at 03:47). As above, a heuristic is inherent.) |
| 出處：George Shaw and Samuel Choi, UC Berkeley, Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology, IEOR 190G Patent Engineering, April 20, 2009 |
另外，此Claim Chart亦可以用來作為舉發他人專利無效的技術特徵對照表。此時，表內之涉嫌侵權產品技術特徵欄位，就應換成引證案（所找到的先前技術）之技術特徵，而將每一引證案（先前技術）列為一欄。此時，該Claim Chart即能表明引證案可以找到對應到所欲使其無效之Claim全部元件的技術特徵，使該Claim喪失新穎性而無效；或能表明多個先前技術（各列為一欄）之簡單組合，就可以對應到所欲使其無效之Claim之所有元件的技術特徵，使該Claim喪失進步性而無效，以利專利局進行審查。如此變化，請讀者自行靈活運用，不多贅言。
總之，在此文義讀取與比對的步驟時，如同期文章《研發人員常見的迴避設計謬思(上)》所述，若該專利之申請專利範圍內任一請求項的「所有」技術特徵，在他人之產品（裝置、機構或元件）之技術內容（即技術特徵）都能找到，即符合「全要件原則」(All-Elements Rule)之要求，則構成對於該專利之「文義侵害」(Read On or Fall Within Claim)或「字面侵害」(literal infringement) (註2)。
例如，專利某請求項之構成要件為A、B、C，被控物件之構成要件為A、B、C 、D ，兩者經過比對之元件，因被控物件之構成要件均為專利某請求項之專利範圍所涵蓋，縱使被控物件多一個D構成要件，被控物件亦構成文義侵害。
若被控物件之對比構成要件中，缺乏該專利請求項之任何一項構成要件，則對於該專利請求項就不構成文義侵害。同時，若被控物件對於該專利的「所有」請求項都不構成文義侵害，我們才能說涉嫌產品並沒有文義侵害該專利。
例如，專利某請求項之構成要件為A、B、C，被控物件之構成要件為A、B、D，將兩者之構成要件，依序逐一加以比對分析，其中雖有A、B構成要件相同，惟專利請求項之C構成要件與被控物件之任一構成要件，經比對分析結果，並不相同，故兩者之構成要件，非為完全相同，因此不構成文義侵害。
因此，其競爭對手稱該公司產品「文義侵害」其專利，是指其專利保護範圍，有一個以上之請求項之所有技術特徵，都能完全在該公司的產品內找到「文義對應」(Read On or Fall Within)之技術特徵，滿足全要件原則，而構成文義侵害。
筆者將接續在下期文章中接續探討，「已經被專利權人提告文義侵害了，應該如何因應？」的這個重要課題。
附註
- 陳宜誠，《ＲＤ研發創新系列之四》研發人員為什麼需要知道專利侵權判斷準則。
- 美國聯邦最高法院於西元（下同）1883年的Fay v. Cordesman 案中認為，專利權人於專利範圍所記載之構成要件，既然為專利權人之權限範圍，其所有之構成要件均應視為必要，法院不得宣告某一構成要件為不重要，此即所謂「全要件原則」（All-Elements Rule）。而「文義侵害」此名詞，則首見於美國聯邦最高法院1889 年之Peter v. Active Mfg. Co. 案。該案之法官認為，申請專利範圍之要件為A、B、C，被控侵權物品或方法之要件，亦為A、B、C，故該被控侵權物品或方法完全落入申請專利範圍內，構成文義侵害。
接著，於American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Manitowoc Co. ，Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc. ，Morton Int’l Inc. v. Cardinal Chemical Co. ，Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co. 及Engel Industries, Inc. v. Lockformer Co. 等案中，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院（CAFC）均指出，文義侵害之判斷，在於將申請專利範圍之每一個要件與被控侵權之物品或方法之要件，兩者作逐一比對，據以認定被控侵權物品或方法有無落入申請專利範圍之文義範疇。據此，發展出美國審判實務所稱之「讀取原則」(Read On ) 或「落入原則」(Fall Within)的專利侵權判斷準則。
專利權人向法院提告時，即需準備上述之Claim Chart(s)，以供法院審查。
多歷期精采文章，請參閱智權報總覽 >>
|
