在本篇文章中，我們將會探討對於法院判例的解讀方式，應該要比一些評論家過往的評論方式更為謹慎。有一些申請人相信，某些專利申請案不應該包含某些特定詞彙（如同前期文章「專利說明書也有禁語-這是真的嗎?」一文中所述）。因為在一些案例中，相關的美國法庭在某些情況下，會將某些相同的用語解釋成有損於申請人權利的情況，而這些都是申請人想要在專利說明書中避免的情況。舉例來說，在Honeywell International, Inc. v. ITT Industries, (Fed. Cir. June 22, 2006)一案中，法院把說明書中特定的特徵解釋為該發明的限制，「本發明（present invention）」或是「發明（invention）」這些詞彙，是被評輪家解讀為不應該被用於說明書中，而在前期的文章中也有討論過這些用語，然而在本篇文章中，這樣的方式則被認為對於判例之解讀是毫無意義的。

事實上某些法院是基於許多考量因素，來決定要以某些方式來解讀特定詞彙。第一項因素顯然就是該詞彙在說明書中的脈絡內容。在一份說明書的頁數超過10~15頁（大多數的美國專利說明書的分量都是如此）時，在其中通常也會包含許多可以讓法院進行解讀之不同內容。更進一步來說，專利並不是獨立進行解讀的，而是透過一個可能包含有馬克曼聽證與針對於在審查過程中所援引之先前技術，以及對造所可能提出之新引證前案（任何有意攻擊該專利之有效性的人，都可能會願意支付先前技術檢索費用，並將相關前案提供給法院以打擊該專利之有效性）的前案解析過程之長期的法院審判過程。應當要進一步考量的因素，還有例如所有的律師都不能重複提出具有相同事實之論點（譯者按：一事不再理原則），或者客戶不願意在律師身上花太多費用成本等因素。另外一項考量因素是法院一般會傾向於維持判決的一致性，儘管其等盡了最大的努力想要維持，但總還是很難達到完全的一致性。如果他們有辦法做到，至少兩個的上訴層級（大多數國家的專利判決都是三級三審制）就沒有存在的必要了。另外一不應忽視的考量因素，就是評論該案件第三方都會假定存在之在該法院訴訟程序中，每一造的利害關係人，在現實生活中所牽涉之實際利益。

上述的考量因素，說明第三方是有多麼難以解讀特定案例之判決，特別是在其僅只是透過研讀法院的最後裁定時，更是如此。因此，由一個案例中的特定的事實，便做出應當如何因應的結論，似乎會是有點冒險，特別是在其並未針對於審判過程中之細節或考量因素進行詳細研究的情況下。

任何一位優秀的律師都能夠針對於專利法中之爭議性課題（例如什麼是有效前案、怎樣才能滿足充分揭露性、什麼才算是引入新事項或是實質揭露於說明書中、或者是在該技術領域中習於此藝者是如何解讀專利範圍中之某個詞彙），而在過往的判例中找到相關案例。他可以藉著援引一件對他有幫助的特定案例，並且輕易的忽視其他無法產生幫助的內容來提出議論。人們總是可以找到這樣的案例，因為凡是在專利法中有爭議的課題，都會衍生相關案例，並且其等係僅限於其所測試之課題上。關於這種情況之經典範例，是在說明書中只具有少數或是僅有一個實施例時的可據以實現性之問題：在化學專利的案例中，於一請求項內請求許多化學化合物，然而在該專利說明書中僅揭露一個可以實際作用之單一特定的化學化合物之實施例，這樣的專利就會讓人爭論，該專利是否可以使得整個請求項所保護的範圍都可據以實現。然而在機械領域中，如果其可以在某個具體實施例中證實其係可以據以實現的，那麼其他的實施例便似乎也可以相同理由而得以據以實現，所以其就可以用來主張單一個實施例，便已足以支持整個專利範圍之可據以實現性。在這些案例中，要將這些爭議性課題（可據以實現性）的最終判決，與案件的具體細節（該發明內容為何）完美切割，是不可行的。因此，律師往往可以輕易地操縱這些案件的該等因素，以完成其所想要的訴訟答辯理由。

這裡還有第二個為什麼在解讀專利判例時，需要小心謹慎之更為深層的理由。專利係與技術有關，同時發明必須要是非顯而易見而具有進步性的。在這樣的條件下，便會在援引先前判決時導致一定的灰色地帶，因為每個判決當下所處的條件，絕對不可能是相同的。

就以現有之案例來說，目前基於Alice一案之最高法院的判決，而被認為是不具有可准專利性的案件，明顯地在基於在State Street Bank一案之美國美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院（CAFC）的判決下，將會是具有可准專利性的 （在當時美國最高法院會介入美國專利裁判是較為罕見的，因此該判決可被視為是具有同等的重要性）。在這一段時間內美國法律在專利適格性（35 USC § 101）上，並沒有顯著的改變，然而現在在判例法上則似乎出現了變化。不過在這段時間內，真正改變的應該是科技技術（電腦效率、電腦自動化以及網絡的可應用性）。一般認為，這些變化可能影響了司法機關如何檢視發明與專利適格性之方式，並進而影響其等如何解讀法律文字的方式。

在美國專利體系中，最高法院與CAFC的判決都具有一定的重要性，並且是應該要依循的。但是有趣的是，這並不意味著其等應該要被過於嚴格地遵循與解讀，而其中總是有些彈性空間。舉例來說，USPTO最近公告了一份如何依據Alice一案的判決來審查專利申請案之應用指南。這是一種解讀判例之形式，因為美國專利商標局是一個聯邦專責機構，其必須依循美國法院對於專利適格性之判決。然而，他們可以採用他們認為的最佳方式來自由地進行解讀。在Alice一案的情況下，他們似乎是藉著採取公告一份依循 Alice案之主要意旨的指南，以取得通用的實務做法，而不是應用Alice案的判決中所有可資應用的特定結論（例如，運用網際網路並不是足以使得一項發明具有可准專利性之特徵）。這種在解讀案例上的彈性空間，可歸因於美國專利商標局是需要將相同樣的規則適用於所有美國專利申請案中，而美國最高法院在Alice案的判例中，則只處理了在某些特定內容下，並考量了許多不同考量因素之幾件具體的美國專利。

作者： 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

Interpreting case-law in patent law
Stefano John / NAIP Education & Training Group , European Patent Attorney

In this article, it will be argued that patent case-law should be interpreted more cautiously than some commentators have alluded to in the past. It has been noticed that some applicants believe that certain application should not include certain words (the concept of patent profanity) because in a certain case, a relevant US Court interpreted that same term to mean something which specifically damaged the client in that specific circumstance and the applicant would like to avoid the same fate happening to their application. For example, it has been argued that, as a result of how a court interpreted a specific feature in specification as a limitation of the invention in Honeywell International, Inc. v. ITT Industries, (Fed. Cir. June 22, 2006), “present invention” or “invention” should not be mentioned in the specification. This newsletter has previously discussed (see Patent Profanity – an absolute truth?) about the concept of patent profanity, but it is also argued that this is an unhelpful way to interpret patent case-law.

The fact that a specific court decided to interpret a specific term in certain way depends on many factors. The first factor is obviously the context of the term in the specification. When a specification is over 10-15 pages (which most US Patents are), there are many variables within the specification which the court can use in their interpretation. Further, there is the fact that the patent is not decided in isolation, but it is decided after a long court case which probably includes Markman hearings and detailed analysis of prior art: not only the prior art cited in the prosecution of the patent, but also probably new prior art found by the opponent (as anybody interested in attacking patent validity in a US Court is probably also willing to pay for a prior art search given the cost of validity proceedings in US Courts).There are further factors to consider, such as that all attorneys are not able to make the same argument as equally convincing or that clients are not willing to incentivise the attorneys as much as others. Another example is the unanimity of decisions taken by the court – despite best efforts to the contrary, the courts are not always able to reach unanimous consent. If they were, there would be no need for at least 2 possible levels of appeal (which most countries have for patent decisions). Another important factor never to be discounted is the real-world pragmatic interest each party in the court proceedings have as opposed to what a third party reading the case would assume they would be.

The above factors illustrate how impossible it is for a third party to decipher a conclusion from a specific case, especially if one only has the final decision to work with. Therefore reaching a conclusion on how to do something based on one specific instance seems a bit risky, especially if one has not studied the many details/factors of the case in detail.

Any good attorney will be able to find case-law within past patent decisions to argue any debatable issue of patent law (for example what is/is not prior art, what is sufficiently disclosed, what is added matter or inherently disclosed in the specification or how a person skilled in the art would interpret a term in a claim) either way. He can do this by citing a specific decision which at least seems to help his case and simply ignoring the context which he does not deem help his client’s argument. There will always be such case-law available because any debatable issue of patent law will have cases where the limits associated with the issue have been tested. A classic example of such a situation is enablement issue with few/only one example in the patent specification: in chemical patent cases where many chemical compounds are claimed in one claim and the patent discloses only one example of only one specific chemical compound actually working the invention may lead one to argue that the patent is not enabled over the entire claim; whereas in mechanical arts if it is proven to work in one specific embodiment, it seems certain that it will work in others within reason and thus it can be argued that one example will suffice to enable the entire claim. In such cases, it is impossible to separate the ultimate decision on the debatable issue (enablement) from the specific details of the case (what the invention is). It is thus easy to manipulate the facts of these cases to whichever argument the lawyer would like to make.

But there is a second, more inherent reason why relying on patent case-law should be done cautiously. Patents deal with technology and the invention has to be not obvious and inventive to even be considered patentable. This causes a certain grey area in how one applies previous decisions because the conditions in which it is made can never be equal.

To take a current example: what is now considered not patentable under the Alice US Supreme Court decision was clearly within the realms of what was patentable under US CAFC State Street Bank decision (at the time it was rare that the US Supreme Court would get involved in US patent law and thus the decisions can be seen to take similar importance). The US Law has not explicitly changed in the intervening period on patent eligibility (35USC §101) and yet it seems that the case-law has changed. But what has changed is the technology within the intervening period (computer efficiencies, computer automation and internet availability). It is suggested that this may have had an effect on how the judiciary view the invention and patent eligibility, thus affecting how they interpret the Law’s words.

Within the US patent system, decisions of the US Supreme Court and US CAFC take on a certain importance and should be followed. But it is also interesting to note that this does not mean that they should be adhered to too strictly and only interpreted. There is always some leeway. For example, the USPTO recently issued guidelines on how the USPTO are to judge future applications in light of the Alice decision. This is a form of interpretation of case-law because the USPTO is a Federal Agency and has to adhere to US Court cases on patent eligibility. However, they are free to interpret the court cases as they see best. In the case of Alice, they seem to have taken a common sense approach by issuing guidelines that follow the main gist of Alice without applying all the specific conclusions that one could possibly derive from Alice (such that using the internet is a feature that cannot be used to make an invention patentable).

This leeway on interpreting case-law can be attributable to the principle that the USPTO has to apply the same rules to all US patent applications while the US Supreme Court Case in Alice only dealt with a couple of specific US patents in some very specific context and by taking into account many different factors.

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

Facebook 在北美智權報粉絲團上追踪我們