美国联邦法院适用等同理论的“非实质性区别”标准

发布时间：2018-05-12 19:31

本文选题：侵害专利权 + 等同理论　；参考：《知识产权》2017年07期

【摘要】：等同理论从防止专利欺诈、向专利权人提供实质正义的保护这一原点出发,一开始便采取了被控产品或方法与专利发明技术方案相比对,如仅存在"非实质性区别"即认定前者落入专利权保护范围的判断标准,并一直相承至今。反向等同理论的存在,更可以验证美国联邦法院对于非实质性区别标准的认同。虽然此后的判例又发展出"功能—手段—效果"的三步检验法,但这只是非实质性区别这一上位判断标准的进一步细化,而非根本的转变。美国联邦法院在近两百年的实践中发展出诸多进行客观判断的外围标准,具体而言就是被控行为人是否存在刻意抄袭行为、被控行为人是否进行了周边设计的努力、相应区别点是否正是权利要求的修改点、发明人在申请过程中就区别点的表态等,这些具体的外部判断因素均有客观行为可以佐证,对于法官形成区别是否属于非实质性的内心确信具有相当的影响。
[Abstract]:From the origin of preventing patent fraud and providing substantial justice to the patentee, the equivalent theory begins by adopting the product or method under charge as opposed to the technical scheme of the patent invention. If there is only "non-substantive difference", that is to say, the former falls into the scope of patent protection, and has been accepted up to now. The existence of the reverse equivalence theory can verify the recognition of the non-substantive distinction standard in the federal courts of the United States. Although the jurisprudence has developed a three-step test method of "function-means-effect", it is only a further refinement of the upper judgment criterion of non-substantive difference, not a fundamental change. In the past 200 years of practice, the United States Federal Court has developed many external criteria for objective judgment, specifically whether the alleged perpetrator has deliberately plagiarized, whether the accused person has made efforts to design the perimeter. Whether the corresponding distinction is the amendment point of the claim, the attitude of the inventor on the difference point in the application process, and so on, these concrete external judgment factors all have the objective behavior to prove, There is considerable influence on the judge's inner conviction as to whether the distinction is non-substantive.
【作者单位】：上海市高级人民法院;
【分类号】：D971.2;DD916.2

【相似文献】