| 關 鍵 詞： |
製程方法專利；舉證責任；TRIPS 協定；專利法第 99 條 |
| 中文摘要： |
專利法第 99 條第 1 項規定：「製造方法專利所製成之物在該製造方法申請專利前，為國內外未見者，他人製造相同之物，推定為以該專利方法所製造」。此為製造方法專利侵害之舉證責任反轉之規定，但該條之「在該製造方法申請專利前」在系爭專利有主張優先權時是否包括「優先權日前」則屬不明確。智慧財產法院民事判決 99 年度民專訴字第 159 號解決此問題，而讓第 99 條第 1 判斷的時間點，對於有主張優先權之專利，從文義上的「申請日」可提早至「優先權日」。不過，本案判決的法律解釋卻不是直接的論述，因而本文意在補充法律論證上之不足。透過TRIPS協定第34條的解釋，本文認為該判決之解釋方向是合理的，且也能完善國際優先權制度。進一步，本文認為「製造方法專利所製成之物」應適度排除製造方法專利權人所生產之物，或至少應排除其於新穎性優惠期期間內所公開之物。此觀點同樣基於對 TRIPS 協定第 34 條的解釋，以及考慮專利法第 99 條的立法理由和專利法內在的和諧。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Process Patent；Burden of Proof；TRIPS Agreement；Article 99 of the Patent Act |
| 英文摘要： |
Article 99, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Act provides, "If the product made by the process patent has never been seen in this or foreign country before the patent application for such process was filed, a product made by others is presumed to be made by such patented process." This provision relates to the reversal of burden of proof for a process patent, but does not clarify whether "before the patent application for the process was filed" covers the date a patentee claims for a right of priority. Taiwan Intellectual Property Court Civil Judgment （99） Min Zhuan Su Zi No. 159（2010） may resolve this issue and implies that the literal meaning of the timing term in Article 99， Paragraph 1 for determining the novelty of "the product made by the process patent" may be changed from the "actual filing date" to "priority date" if the patent enjoys the right of priority. But, the court did not interpret the statute directly. So, this article is intended to provide legal arguments to support the court. According to the interpretation of Article 34 of the TRIPS Agreement, this article supports the reasonableness of the court's implication that can improve the law of a right of priority. Moreover, this article proves that the scope of "the product made by the process patent" should exclude the product made by the process patent owner, or at least the product disclosed publicly by the patentee during the grace period. This view is supported by the interpretation of Article 34 of the TRIPS Agreement, legislative history of Article 99 of the Patent Act, and the consideration of the internal harmonization of the Patent Act.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
一、TRIPS 協定第 34 條與專利法第 99 條
二、智慧財產法院民事判決 99 年度民專訴字第 159 號之背景
三、本文之目的
貳、專利法第 99 條（當時第 87 條）解釋之爭點
一、舉證責任之轉換
二、法條解釋爭點與當事人主張
參、爭點一：「該製造方法申請專利前」
一、本案法院之見解
二、申請專利前
三、TRIPS 協定第 34 條第 1 項之「新的」
（一）TRIPS 協定第 27 條第 1 項之「新的」與判斷基準日
（二）TRIPS 協定第 34 條第 1 項之「新的」與判斷基準日
四、專利法第99條第 1 項之解釋
（一）專利法與 TRIPS 協定之調和
（二）專利法第 99 條之立法目的與專利法之內在調和
（三）政策的考慮
肆、爭點二：「製造方法專利所製成之物」
一、本案法院之見解
二、相同物品之認定
（一）PCT 申請案
（二）世界衛生組織藥物資訊
三、「製造方法專利所製成之物」之「物」及其解釋
（一）問題之提出
（二）專利法第 99 條之立法目的
（三）專利法與 TRIPS 協定之調和
（四）專利法內部之調和
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|