在專利侵權的判斷程序中,若經判斷被控侵權對象不符合「文義讀取」,未構成文義侵權,而專利權人另主張適用「均等論(doctrine of equivalents, DOE)」時,應再判斷被控侵權對象是否構成均等侵權。均等論係基於保障專利權人之利益的立場,避免他人僅就系爭專利之請求項的技術手段稍作非實質之改變,即規避專利侵權的責任。專利權人主張被控侵權對象適用均等論而構成均等侵權時,被控侵權人得提出抗辯,主張全要件原則、申請歷史禁反言、先前技術阻卻或貢獻原則等事項,以限制均等論,若任一限制事項成立,則不適用均等論,應判斷被控侵權對象不構成均等侵權[1]。
本次要探討的判例是CSP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SUD-CHEMIE AG, Case No. 15-1124 (Fed. Cir., Mar. 22, 2016)[2],CAFC維持地院對於SUD-CHEMIE未侵權的決定,也就是說在貢獻原則下,CSP禁止用DOE來將範圍擴大至說明書有揭露但未寫入claim中的內容。
所以SUD-CHEMIE是否侵權的關鍵就是137專利的Claim 1有無包含「一件式」,而爭辯點是Claim 1中「the lid is attached by a hinge to an upper housing portion of the container」這句中的「upper housing portion」之解釋,CSP認為不管其是否能分離,請求項字義上就有包含一件式與二件式,但地院做完請求項解釋後認為「upper housing portion」只有包含二件式。CSP接著想藉由均等論來擴大系爭請求項使其包含說明書中的一件式,但地院認為此舉違反貢獻原則,即CSP已將一件式貢獻給公眾,所以SUD-CHEMIE未侵權。
As CSP notes, we have held that “the public notice function of patents suggests that before unclaimed subject matter is deemed to have been dedicated to the public, that unclaimed subject matter must have been identified by the patentee as an alternative to a claim limitation.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005); accord SanDisk, 695 F.3d at 1366–67.
“one of ordinary skill would have come to the conclusion that the inventor[] ha[s] identified [the unclaimed embodiment] as an alternative to [the claimed embodiment].” Pfizer, 429 F.3d at 1379.
A patentee who inadvertently fails to claim disclosed subject matter, however, is not left without remedy. Within two years from the grant of the original patent, a patentee may file a reissue application and attempt to enlarge the scope of the original claims to include the disclosed but previously unclaimed subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 251 (2000). In addition, a patentee can file a separate application claiming the disclosed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (2000) (allowing filing as a continuation application if filed before all applications in the chain issue). Johnson & Johnston Assoc., Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002). http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/285/1046/570109/