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
|
身為歐洲專利律師，我注意到關於歐洲專利公約(European Patent Convention, EPC)中「優惠期」（grace-periods）的規定，與歐洲專利局（European Patent Office, EPO）將其適用於一般的歐洲專利申請上，有個很常見的錯誤觀念。不像許多其他國家的專利法規定，EPC並不給予申請案所謂優惠期（至少並未達到其他國家的優惠程度)。
如果某些先前技術在發明申請歐洲專利前的六個月內被公開，且其揭露為與該發明人／申請人有關的「明確濫用」（evident abuse）（譯註：或是在極少數符合巴黎公約所定義的國際性展覽會中展示者），則EPC允許在申請案的新穎性審查上，可以忽略這些先前技術的存在。請注意這並不是優先權的申請，而與實際歐洲專利申請案或是選擇由EPO進行前案檢索的PCT申請案有關。很多其他國家的專利法以及他們的優惠期條款也有類似這樣的規定。然而，EPC對於「明確濫用」的解釋已經讓這EPC所訂定的六個月窗口，不能真的被認為是所謂的「優惠期」。
這裡所說的「明確濫用」，需要搶先揭露者具有造成實際傷害的意圖或可預期會造成傷害的真實認知，因此，大部分在其他國家可以適用優惠期的案例，在EPC條約的規範下，則因為未被明確濫用而不適用。這樣的案例很多，例如受雇者犯了錯而提前揭露了發明，或是對一些重要的日期有所誤解而錯過了截止日，則雇主仍無法提出該發明的專利申請而不被核駁。
有個著名的例子可以說明EPO對於所謂「明確濫用」的解釋有多嚴厲，有個外國申請案因為外國專利事務所的失誤，而提早公開其申請案，即使這個錯誤跟申請人或發明人一點關係也沒有，EPC優惠期的規定仍不適用，因為申請人或發明人並無法證明專利局（或外國專利事務所）確實有意圖要造成其損害。
因此，這六個月窗口，因為有如何證明被明確濫用的問題，只能適用在非常有限的有實際證據顯示揭露者有意圖濫用的情況下。在大部分的案例裡，這時其他跟雇傭關係有關的法律與營業秘密等，會占了案情比較大的部分，因此一般是由各國法庭來進行裁判，而非由EPO來決定。
還要記住的是，這六個月窗口的適用性，還可能會被上述關於明確濫用法律的再次應用所更加限制。例如，如果有個第一次被揭露的發明是屬於明確濫用，則它的存在可以被忽略，但其被揭露的效果並不能被忽略。此時，如果有第三者發現這個被明確濫用所揭露的發明內容，並轉而自行揭露同一內容，那麼這第二次與隨後的揭露就很有可能不會屬於明確濫用（除非有人可以證明第二次跟隨後的揭露者皆屬惡意且合意為之）。因此，即使能證明有被明確濫用而揭露，也不能保證日後仍能夠取得專利。
如上面所解釋的，EPC關於明確濫用揭露的規定並不能真的被當作是優惠期。在國際貿易討論中，EPC這種嚴格的立場備受批評，特別是被USPTO（美國專利商標局）與其相關利害關係人所批評，他們希望藉由美國專利法（America Invents Act）的施行，可以帶動歐洲夥伴往採用適當優惠期的方向前進。這個由歐洲夥伴們引進如此規定的內部討論過程，就是所謂的泰根賽程序（Tegernsee Process），但這不會進行得很快，而且可能會被歐盟統一專利的討論所取代，因為這是從歐盟（比較高的層面）的角度去決定，而非只從歐洲專利局的角度進行考量。
同時請注意，如果在申請前優惠期內揭露發明的內容，不管是統一申請案，或是多個國家級申請案，在歐洲還是有些選項可以來取得專利的保護，我們必須依據案例的特定事實與客戶需求而定，何者會是最有效或是最具經濟效益的選項。
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
|
EPC and grace periods
Stefano John NAIP Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney
As a European patent attorney, I have noticed there is a common misconception on the applicability of grace –periods within the European Patent Convention, and therefore by the EPO (European Patent Office) and to European patents in general. Unlike many patent Laws in other countries, the EPC does not allow for grace-period applications, at least to the extent that many other countries do.
The EPC allows one to ignore the pertinence of any disclosure of prior art that was an evident abuse in relation to the inventor/applicant if the disclosure occurred only 6 months or less before the filing of the European patent application. Please note that this is not the priority application, but actual European or PCT application designating EPO. This criterion applies to many other countries and their grace-period provisions as well. However, the extent to which the wording of evident abuse has been interpreted means that the EPC’s 6-month window cannot be really considered as a grace-period.
Evident abuse, within this context, requires the anticipatory disclosure cause actual intent to harm or actual knowledge that harm would or could be expected. Hence in the large majority of cases where a grace period would be useful, the EPC provision would not apply because of the lack of evident abuse. Examples of such cases are where an employer cannot file a patent application for an invention because an employee made a mistake and disclosed the invention or where a misunderstanding in dates and deadlines occurred.
A famous case which shows how strictly the EPO interprets the evident abuse is shown by the case where a foreign application was published early and this was proven to be due to a mistake by a foreign patent office and in no way the applicant’s/inventor’s responsibility. The EPC provision still did not apply because it could not be proven that the patent office actually intended to cause harm.
Hence, the applicability of this 6-month window due to evident abuse only occurs in very limited circumstances where there is actual evidence of intent to abuse. In most of these cases, other Laws related to employer-employee relationships and on trade confidentiality also play a substantial part and are therefore generally decided by national courts, and not the EPO.
One has to further remember that the applicability of the 6-month window is further restricted by another possibility that applies to the above Law regarding evident abuse. If a first disclosure was an evident abuse and can be ignored, its effects cannot. If a third person acted on a disclosure due to evident abuse and provided their own disclosure of the same invention, then this second/third disclosure would most probably not be evident abuse (unless one can prove that the second and third parties were in evident bad-faith collaboration). Hence, even if there was evident abuse, there is no guarantee that one can have a patent for that invention nonetheless.
As explained above, the EPC’s provisions cannot really be considered as a grace-period. In international trade discussions, this strict position taken by the EPC has been criticized, particularly by the USPTO and their stake-holders. It was hoped that the introduction of the America Invents Act by the USA would spur the European partners to move towards adopting a proper grace-period. The internal discussions by the European partners on introducing such a provision proceed through what is known as the Tergensee Process, but it is not moving quickly and will probably be overtaken by discussions on European Unitary Patents which are being decided at EU level and not by the EPO.
In the meanwhile, please note that there are still options available to protect one’s right in Europe if one has a grace-period disclosure which involves filing an application at either unitary level or several applications at national level. The choice which would be most effective, or even cost-effective, would depend on specific facts of the case and needs of the client.
更多歷期精采文章，請參閱智權報總覽 >>
|
