10112月號 道 法 法 訊 (248)

DEEP & FAR

 

 

 

產品製程請求項之解讀方式 (十四)

-(Fed. Cir.2007-1400)

 

陳榮福 專利代理人

•中國醫藥學院藥學系學士

•日本福岡大學生藥學所碩士

•陽明大學醫學藥理所博士

 

 

然而於4,321號,除敘述其為製備過程之產品外,未被定義其為何物。因此,除非釋明利用4,321號製程產製之被告產品,或釋明該產品無法以任何其他製程生產,否則被告之產品即無法指稱係以4,321號方法之產品。

 

請求項之文字應解釋為涵蓋所有人工茜素,而不論其成分,係從 anthracine或其衍生物運用發明之方法製造。係由 Graebe Liebermann所發明之溴法製程,而我們擁有之產品或物質組合物專利,其並未提供任何可供辨識之資訊。各個產品或物質組合物之專利必須加以辨識,使其除製程之敘述外,得有所識別,否則該專利將不至於被依其它製程所製造之產品所侵權。([1])

BASF判例之後,最高法院繼續強調製程步驟之重要性,以評估產品製程請求項之侵權。([2])

因此根據最高法院判例,及多年來USPTO 和其他具拘束力法院之判決,對產品製程請求項之處理,本法院聲明,產品製程請求項中製程部分係提供決定侵權之限制。([3]) 如上所述,此見解依循本院於In re Thorpe案件之清晰敘述,即製程請求項之產品係受製程所限制且定義。([4])

 

 



[1]. Id. at 310 (emphasis added).

[2]. See, e.g., Plummer, 120 U.S. at 448 (“[W]hatever likeness that may appear between the product of the process described in the patent and the article made by the defendants, their identity is not established unless it is shown that they are made by the same process.”); Gen. Elec. Co., 304 U.S. at 373 (“[A] patentee who does not distinguish his product from what is old except by reference, express or constructive, to the process by which he produced it, cannot secure a monopoly on the product by whatever means produced.” (footnote omitted)).

[3] Atl. Thermoplastics, 970 F.2d at 846-47.

[4] 777 F.2d at 697.