作者簡介：
郭史蒂夫 歐洲專利律師
現任：
北美智權教育訓練處 ／歐洲專利律師
經歷：
- Bryers事務所 歐洲專利律師
- Bugnion SpA事務所 歐洲專利學習律師
- Notabartolo & Gervasi事務所 歐洲專利學習律師
- 歐洲專利局 實習生
- 英國牛津大學生物化學、細胞與分子生物系，生化碩士
- 英國倫敦大學瑪莉皇后學院，智財管理碩士
|
世界各地許多國家的專利法，都規定已授證的專利是推定有效的。這個權利有效性的推定，讓專利權人可以據以提起侵權訴訟，查封侵權物品，並禁止他人進行若干業務活動。
在過去的幾十年中，越來越多的企業已經採取了藉由專利制度來保護自己的創新發明之行動。這意味著，各國專利局都已積壓了大量未處理的專利申請案。在實務上，這意味著一些品質可疑的專利將被授予（因審查太匆促）或申請案將花很長的時間來排隊等待審查。在這大量（專利申請）積案的狀況發生的同時，技術也發生了變化，而用來確定什麼是可專利之創新發明的法律也因此必須有所改變。Myriad案與Bilski案就是這種法律（見解）變動的最佳實例。
因此，比以往更重要的是，一個企業要能夠保衛自己免於專利或品質可疑專利申請案的困擾。舉例來說，最近在美國廣為討論的專利訴訟的大幅增加，和「非專利實施實體」（Non-Practicing-Entities，以下簡稱NPE）又稱為「專利蟑螂」（Patent Trolls）的道德性，就屬之。在某些情況下，NPE被指控獲得大批品質可疑的專利，並對其他公司積極主張其專利權。因此，我們可以說，NPE的商業模式僅奠基於一個概念，那就是比起在法庭審判中為自己辯護的（鉅大）花費來說，企業更容易對NPE的需索投降。這在美國是相當真實的情況描述，特別是由於耗時甚久（取證程序、法官、陪審團、律師與專家證人等），因此美國的侵權訴訟案件是非常昂貴的。這就是為什麼經由新修正美國發明法（AIA）的制定，美國專利商標局（USPTO）已經設立一些新的快速審查通道程序，以盡可能快速審定專利為無效。然而，這些專利是已授證之專利，在被判定或審定推翻前，我們仍應推定其為有效。
那麼，企業如何才能保衛自己，免於受到專利，或品質可疑的專利申請案，或那些不屬於真正發明創見的專利騷擾呢？答案是正面迎戰或與專利權人談判。但對於企業來說，更關鍵的問題是，在什麼時候選擇正面迎戰或談判！
專利的有效性，主要取決於在提交申請時，其與已知的先前技術（又稱現有技術）的比對。因此，專利的有效性就成為一個流動的概念，在多數情況下取決於什麼先前技術是已知的。因此，先前技術的檢索是非常有價值的，因為它可以幫助企業來決定其正試圖申請之專利的有效性，並幫助企業確定這些專利申請案是否是一個真正可專利的創見或發明。先前技術檢索對於企業的價值，主要並不是其能否發現先前技術使專利無效（當然，雖然這將是最佳的結果）， 而是在企業與專利權人繼續戰鬥或進行談判前，能夠靠它來尋求一個可靠的結論，以確定專利是否真正有效（權利主張有多麼堅實）。
配備了這（專利有效性的）訊息後，企業可以選擇繼續正面迎戰或與專利擁有者談判，並迅速達成結果，而不須訴諸昂貴的法律訴訟。若企業選擇正面迎戰時，則可使用此檢索結果，透過特定的法律程序，如AIA的快速審理通道程序，使對手的專利無效。另一種方法則是利用法院途徑，但眾所周知的是，這會需要花費企業較高的成本。在企業選擇進行談判的情況下，如果檢索結果是極為有利的（即有找到先前技術），它就可以利用此檢索結果來談判出一個相對廉價或甚至免費的授權許可。即使沒有找到有利的檢索結果（即沒有找到先前技術），由於儘早主動與對手談判授權，企業通常就可以談判出比較好的授權條件，就會比後來被逼著與對手簽訂授權契約有利多了。當然，企業也可以採取忽視此一問題的方法，然後等到後來沒有找到相關的先前技術時，才發現必須接受對手嚴苛的強制性授權許可條件。
我們可以肯定的說，一個強制性的授權許可所內含的條件，將遠比提前自願取得授權者嚴苛得多！
相較在法庭上捍衛自己權益的高成本，或後來被強制性授權許可的嚴苛選項，不論選擇正面迎戰或談判，儘快進行費用較低的（可專利性）檢索和分析，都應能替企業節省許多成本。當然，專利檢索需要被（專業人士）快速和有效的執行，才能得到一個可靠的答案。這也是為什麼，任何檢索報告都應伴隨著一個詳盡的專業分析意見的原因，因為它能使企業可以正確解讀檢索的結果，從而能採取正確的作法，來克服阻礙它業務發展的專利。
| 北美智權將從教育訓練著手，特別針對台灣企業界研發人員的實務工作需求進行課程設計，讓研發人員能夠認識專利與活用專利，進而創造專利。首期「專利解析」課程，「研發人員 專利解析基礎班」（課程介紹），即將開班，其課程內容即包括怎樣檢索競爭對手的專利、以及如何解析專利以快速獲取技術等，歡迎業界研發人員報名參加。 |
About the Author:
Stefano John, European Patent Attorney
Experiences：
- European Patent Attorney, Bryers
- Trainee European Patent Attorney, Bugnion SpA
- Trainee European Patent Attorney, Notabartolo & Gervasi
- Internship, EPO
|
Value of a Patentability Search
Stefano John NAIP Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney
Patent Laws in many countries around the world assume that if a patent has been granted, it is considered valid. This presumption of validity means that a patent owner can then bring infringement proceedings against, sequester infringing assets from and prohibit others from carrying on with certain business activities.
Over the last couple of decades, more and more businesses have taken up the practice of attempting to protect their own innovations through the patent system. This has meant that national patent offices have developed large backlog of applications. In practice, this has meant that some patents of dubious quality have been granted (examination has been too hurried) or that the applications remain as patent applications for a long time. While this has occurred, technology has changed also and therefore the Law to determine what is a patentable innovation has changed also. One needs only cite seminal cases like Myriad or Bilski as examples of such changes in the Law.
It has therefore become more important than ever before for a business to be able to defend itself from patents or patent applications of dubious quality. One need only cite as an example the recent discussions in the US on the increase in patent litigation and the ethics of Non-Practicing-Entities (NPEs), otherwise known as patent trolls. In some cases, it is accused that NPEs acquire large bulk of granted patents of dubious quality and enforce these aggressively on other businesses. It is thus argued that the business model in these cases relies on the idea that it is easier for businesses to surrender to the demands of the NPEs than defend themselves in a court trial. This can be quite true in the US, where an infringement lawsuit can be very expensive, particularly due to the times involved. That is why the USPTO has set up, through the America Invents Act (AIA), new fast-track procedures to invalidate granted patents as quickly as possible. However the patent is a granted patent and therefore presumed valid.
So how can the third party business defend itself from patents or patent applications of dubious quality or just ones that are not genuine inventions?
The answer is to either fight or negotiate with the proprietor of the patent. But the crucial issue to the third party business is when to either fight or negotiate!
The validity of the patent is determined primarily by its relationship with what was known in the prior art at the time of filing. Therefore the validity of a patent becomes a fluid concept, depending in many ways upon what prior art is known. Thus prior art searches can be very valuable because they can help a third party business determine the validity of a patent they are trying to overcome and help them decide whether the patent is a genuinely patentable invention or not. The value of the search for the third party business does not come so much from whether the search has found prior art that invalidates the patent, though of course that would be the optimal outcome, but by arming it with a reliable conclusion on whether the patent is genuinely valid or not before continuing in either fighting or negotiating with the patent proprietor.
Armed with that information, the third party business can then proceed to either fight or negotiate with the patent owner and reach an outcome quickly without resorting to the notoriously higher legal costs that would be incurred if undertaken later. Where the third party would like to fight, the third party business could then use the results of the search to invalidate the patent in specific proceedings, such as the new fast-track ones under the AIA. The alternative would be to use the courts, where notoriously higher costs apply. In the case where the third party would like to negotiate, he could use the results of the search to negotiate a relatively cheap or free license if the results of the search were fruitful. If they were not, the third party could still be advantaged by negotiating for a license quickly under better conditions than later when obliged to. The alternative would be to ignore the issue and to find that he needs to take out an obligatory license after finding no relevant prior art at that late stage.
One can be sure that an obligatory license will contain more damaging conditions than one taken out voluntarily earlier!
In either case, the cheaper costs of carrying out a search and analysis in the immediate future would save on the notoriously higher costs of defending oneself in legal cases or taking out an obligatory license later. Of course, the patent search needs to be carried out quickly and efficiently so as to give a reliable answer. That is also why the results of the search should also be accompanied by a thorough professional analysis, which allows one to interpret the results correctly and thus arm the third party business with the correct approach to take to overcome the impeding patent.
更多歷期精采文章，請參閱智權報總覽 >>
|
