臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：專利侵害均等論之過去、現在及未來--我國法應何去何從？
書刊名：東吳法律學報
作者：沈宗倫 引用關係
作者(外文)：Shen, Chung-lun
出版日期：2008
卷期：20:2
頁次：頁173-222
主題關鍵詞：專利侵害；均等論；主要技術；次要技術；三階段同一性測試法；非重大差異測試法；專利目的解釋原則；先前技術排除原則；均等公開拋棄原則；審查協商禁反言原則；審查期間拋棄原則；Patent infringement；The doctrine of equivalents；Main technique；Supporting technique；The triple identity test；Insubstantial difference test；Purposive construction；Prior art defense；The public dedication doctrine；Prosecution history estoppel；Renunciations or intentional removal during examination process
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(11) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:7
  • 共同引用共同引用:165
  • 點閱點閱:56
無可置疑的，專利侵害均等論在專利侵害案件之啟動及適用一直是專利法上頗具爭議的議題，此不以美國法為然，日本、英國及歐陸各國亦面臨同一問題，在我國專利法未來逐漸參考或繼受外國先進的法制而落實本土法體系之同時，均等論之爭議亦勢必將在我國的專利法上發動一番的論辯。均等論一方面從專利權利範圍之保護而論，係屬超越專利請求範圍文義解釋的權利擴張，當其啟動及適用時，令專利權人得享有未經專利審查機關核准的部分權利範圍；另一方面，就專利之公平及適切的角度而言，均等論的創設及承認亦為不得不然，若無均等論之存在，第三人動輒得以就他人之專利內容，修改就專利評價上不重要的元件而實施他人之專利，在無需投入相當之研發成本下，輕易便可躲避專利文義侵害的訴追，享有他人的大部分研究成果。因此，如何在專利的公平保護的法理下合宜地啟動及適用均等論，便為我國專利法下值得關注的焦點。另外，國際間，例如：美國、德國等國，已發展出專利侵害均等論之適用限制，特別是根據專利先前技術或基於「禁反言」法則所形成之限制，其間之合理性及其於我國專利法之可行性，仍值得進一步之探究。 鑑於我國專利法之司法實務尚未建立完整的均等論啟動及適用體系，本文本於專利公平及適切保護的法理基礎，並以比較法的觀點檢討以美國、英國、德國及日本為主關於均等論之相關議題，嘗試建立一套最適的法律模式，以供未來立法之參考及司法實務於個案上之斟酌運用。
Without doubts, launching and application of the doctrine of equivalents has been among the most controversial issues under patent law. Not only U.S. patent law is faced with this controversy, but patent laws under Japan, U.K and other European continental states also confront it. As Taiwanese patent law has been being reformed and refined by learning from legal experience of the advanced states, the disputes concerning the doctrine of equivalents will be introduced to Taiwan patent law in the coming future. On one side, in terms of protection of patent, the doctrine of equivalents proceeds as an expansion of claims of patent, and its launching and application would make the patentee enjoy what is not within the patent scope that has been through examination of the patent office. On the other side, from the angle of fair and adequate protection of patent, the doctrine of equivalents is necessary to be created and affirmed. Were it for the doctrine of equivalents, anyone could legally apply patent to manufacture products by amending some insubstantial elements disclosed in the patent claims. This situation seems to indicate that a minor change that is done without involving in much research and development cost would protect the infringer from legal action of patent infringement, and the infringer could enjoy major parts of the invention. As a consequence, it becomes essential how to interpret adequately the doctrine of equivalents under fair and adequate protection of patent in Taiwanese patent law. Additionally, among states with advanced patent law, especially, U.S. and Germany, some limitations of the doctrine of equivalents have been developed, some of which focus on prior art or estoppel are drawing the attention. The justification and feasibility of those limitations under Taiwanese patent law are still worth further examining. In view of lack of complete and perfect legal system concerning the doctrine of equivalents under Taiwanese judicial cases, this article, based of the fair and adequate protection of patent, tries best to establish an optimal legal model for launching and application of the doctrine of equivalents, through the comparative approach, as a reference for amendment of Taiwanese patent law and Taiwanese judicial cases in the future.
期刊論文
1.劉孔中、倪萬鑾(20020400)。均等論在我國實務應用上所生問題之檢討。智慧財產權月刊，40，55-66。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Cohen, Julie E.、Lemley, Mark A.(2001)。Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry。California Law Review，89(1)，1-57。  new window
3.Meurer, Michael J.、Nard, Craig Allen(2005)。Invention, Refinement and Patent Claim Scope: A New Perspective on the Doctrine of Equivalents。Georgetown Law Journal，93，1947。  new window
4.Burk, Dan L.、Lemley, Mark A.(2003)。Policy Levers in Patent Law。Virginia Law Review，89(7)，1575-1696。  new window
5.Conigliaro, Matthew J.(2001)。Foreseeability in Patent Law。Berkeley Technology Law Journal，16，1045。  new window
6.Teague, Brain J.(2003)。Festo and the Future of the Doctrine of Equivalents。CHI.-KENT J. INTELL. PROP.，3，1。  new window
7.Thomas, John R.(2005)。Claim Re-construction: The Doctrine of Equivalents in the Post-markman Era。LEWIS & CLARK L. REV.，9，153。  new window
8.Janis, Mark(1999)。Who's Afraid of Functional Claims? Reforming the Patent Law's §112 6 Jurisprudence。Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal，15，231-231。  new window
9.Pagenberg, Jochen(1995)。More Refined Rules of Claim Interpretation in Germany。International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law，26，228-228。  new window
10.Stenvik, Are(2001)。Protection of Equivalents under Patent Law - Theories and Practice。International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law，32，1-1。  new window
11.Franzosi, Mario(2001)。Three European Cases on Equivalent - Will Europe Adopt Catnic?。International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law，32，113-113。  new window
12.Brinkhof, Jan(2002)。Is There a European Doctrine of Equivalence?。International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law，33，911-911。  new window
13.Hölder, Niels(2006)。Exogenous Equals Endogenous? Claim Construction after the Amgen Decision。International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law，37，662-662。  new window
14.Allison, John R.、Lemley, Mark A.(2007)。The (Unnoticed) Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents。Stanford Law Review，59，955。  new window
15.Cotropia, Cristopher A.(2005)。"After-arising" Technology and Tailoring Patent Scope。NYU Annual Survey of American Law，61，151-151。  new window
16.Adams, Charles W.(2006)。The Doctrine of Equivalents: Becoming a Derelict on the Waters of Patent Law。Nebraska Law Review，84，1113-1121。  new window
17.Lichtman, Doug(2005)。The Doctrine of Equivalents: Substitutes for the Doctrine of Equivalents: A Response to Meurer amd Nard。Georgetown Law Journal，93，2013。  new window
18.Vermont, Samson(2006)。Independent Invention as a Defense to Patent Infringement。Michigan Law Review，105，475-475。  new window
19.Lemley, Mark A.(2007)。Should Patent Infringement Require Proof of Copying?。Michigan Law Review，105，1525-1525。  new window
20.Vermont, Samson(2007)。The Angel is in the Big Picture: A Response to Lemley。Michigan Law Review，105，1537-1537。  new window
21.Adelman, Martin J.、Francione, Gary L.(1989)。The Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law: Questions that Pennwalt Did Not Answer。University of Pennsylvania Law Review，137，673。  new window
22.陳志杰、劉尚志(2004)。論均等論之比對方式－逐項測試法之優缺點探討。科技法學評論，1(2)，397-425。new window  延伸查詢new window
23.陳佳麟(2005)。申請專利範圍之手段功能用語解釋及其侵和判斷。科技法學評論，2(1)，147-203。new window  延伸查詢new window
24.Turner, Jonathan D. C.(1999)。Purposive Construction: Seven Reasons Why Catnic Is Wrong。European Intellectual Property Review，21(11)。  new window
25.Franzosi, Mario(2003)。Equivalent in Europe。European Intellectual Property Review，25(6)。  new window
26.Burk, Dan L.、Lemley, Mark A.(2004)。Biotechnology's Uncertainty Principle。Case Western Reserve Law Review，54(3)，691-742。  new window
學位論文
1.倪萬鑾(2002)。均等論之比較研究(碩士論文)。國防管理學院。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.謝銘洋(1997)。智慧財產權之基礎理論。臺北市：謝銘洋。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Chisum, Donals S.(2011)。Chisum On Patents。  new window
3.Schechter, Roger E.、Thomas, John R.(2004)。Principles of Patent Law。St. Paul, MN：West, a Thomson Business。  new window
4.Goldstein, Paul(2001)。International Intellectual Property Law: Cases and Materials。  new window
5.Adelman, Martin J.、Rader, Randall R.、Thomas, John R.(2003)。Cases and Materials on Patent Law。  new window
6.Cornish, William、Llewelyn, David(2003)。Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights。London：Sweet & Maxwell。  new window
7.楊崇森(2007)。專利法理論與運用。台北：三民書局股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
8.謝銘洋(1995)。智慧財產權之制度與實務。台北：翰蘆圖書。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.劉孔中(2007)。智慧財產權法制的關鍵革新。臺北：元照。  延伸查詢new window
10.蔡明誠(2000)。發明專利法研究。臺北：蔡明誠。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.曾陳明汝(20040000)。兩岸暨歐美專利法。臺北：蔡明誠。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.馮震宇(2004)。智慧財產權發展趨勢與重要問題研究。元照。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.Harmon, Robert L.(2003)。Patents and the Federal Circuit。Patents and the Federal Circuit。0。  new window
14.羅炳榮(2005)。工業財產權論叢－Festo篇。工業財產權論叢－Festo篇。臺北。new window  延伸查詢new window
15.Donner, Irah H.(1999)。Patent Prosecution: Practice & Procedure before the U.S. Patent Office。Patent Prosecution: Practice & Procedure before the U.S. Patent Office。0。  new window
16.Thomas, John R.(2006)。Discharging the Canons of Claim Construction: Exercise in Interpretation at United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuits。US Intellectual Property Law and Policy。0。  new window
17.曾勝珍(2004)。智慧財產權法專題研究。智慧財產權法專題研究。0。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：887（臺灣：878，外國：9） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2178223 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67984167
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上