先發明人申請主義與調查程序

美國 2011 年專利改革法（Patent Reform Act of 2011）將原採之先發明主義改 為先發明人申請主義，其於專利法第 102 條就可專利性條件之新穎性重新加以界 定。原先專利法第 102（a）條規定，發明於美國係他人所已知或已使用，或於美 國或國外之專利或已於印刷刊物記載，即不能獲准專利。對新穎性是否具備，關

395 See Mike R.Turner,supra note 376 at 1355.

396 See Steven N. Hird, IN FINNIGAN'S WAKE: RECENT CONFUSING CHANGES IN THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT'S REQUIREMENT FOR CORROBORATION OF WITNESS TESTIMONY DURING PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION, 72 U.COLO.L.REV. 257, 271(2001).

397 See Mike R.Turner,supra note 376 at 1331.

398 See Finnigan Corp. ,supra note 367.

399 See Nick Gallo, FINNIGAN CORP. V. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, 15 BERKELEY TECH.L.J.129, 145(2000).

400 See Jessica R. Underwood, IMPEACHING FINNIGAN AND REALIGNING THE

CORROBORATION STANDARD FOR UNINTERESTED SINGLE WITNESS TESTIMONY WITH PRECEDENT AND POLICY, 7 U.PITT.J.TECH.L.&POL'Y 3, 31(2007).

82

於專利及印刷刊物之公開範圍係採國際公開；使用公開之範圍則採國內公開⁴⁰¹。 新修正專利法第 102（a）條則規定，申請之發明於申請日前，除了係曾經准許之 專利、記載於已發行刊物，或已公開使用、銷售，或其他公眾可得到的情形外，

應准專利⁴⁰²。新專利法關於新穎性已全面採取國際公開。新修正專利法於本條較 特殊之處，係規定了「其他公眾可得到的」之概括條款。

關於資料是否屬印刷刊物（printed publication），美國 CAFC 認為係屬法律問 題，就法律問題上訴至 CAFC 應以全面審查（de novo）的標準加以審查。而所謂 印刷刊物係指對該技術有興趣之公眾得充分地可接近（sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art）或可得到的，資料是否刊行（published）法律上判斷重 要的關鍵是散布與公眾之可接近性（dissemination and public accessibility）⁴⁰³。新修 正專利法之其他公眾可得到的（otherwise available to the public）文義上是經准許 之專利、記載於已刊行印刷品，或已公開使用、銷售的列舉項目之概括條款？抑 或僅是已公開使用、銷售的概括條款？是否包括銷售與公開使用中的秘密先前技 術（secret prior art）?學者已提出質疑⁴⁰⁴。不過，至少包括口頭訊息傳遞予多數人 之公眾之情形⁴⁰⁵。

依據新修正美國專利法第 135（a）條規定，專利申請人得向專利商標局提出 一調查程序（a derivation proceeding）之申請，於該調查程序申請，應說明發現先 前申請人未經同意，以源自申請人所請之發明而申請與申請人相同或實質相同之 發明。申請人為調查程序之申請，得自先申請人所申請發明公開後之一年內為 之。申請人調查程序之申請，應具備宣誓書並應為實質證據所支持。當專利商標 局長認申請人申請之調查程序符合規定的要件，即得決定提起一調查程序。就該 專利商標局長之決定，則不得聲明不服。而依前述所提起之調查程序，係由專利 審判及上訴委員會（the Patent Trial and Appeal Board）裁決先申請人之發明，是否 未經同意而源自調查程序申請人之發明。於適當情形，專利審判及上訴委員會得 更正任何申請中或系爭專利之發明人名義。專利審判及上訴委員會得延遲調查程 序之申請，直至專利商標局長核准包括申請調查的專利之日後 3 個月內才進行。

以便系爭的可專利性確定後，再進行調查程序，避免就不具可專利性之申請，進 行無謂的調查程序。專利審判及上訴委員會就調查程序所作之終局裁決，若係不

401 35 U.S.C.§ 102(2002)(“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--(a)the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent……”).

402 35 U.S.C.§ 102.(a)(2002)(“ Novelty; prior art.--A person shall be entitled to a patent

unless(1)the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;……”).

403 In re Klopfenstein 380 F.3d 1345,1347-1348(2004).

404 Joshua D. Sarnoff, Derivation and Prior Art Problems with the New Patent Act, 2011 PATENTLY-O PATENT LAW REVIEW 12(2011).

405 Id.

83

利於專利申請人，則構成專利商標局之終局否准該專利申請；若係不利於專利權 人，且已終局確定時，將構成該專利權請求項之撤銷⁴⁰⁶。

依美國 2011 年專利改革法（Patent Reform Act of 2011），新修正專利法將美 國原採之先發明主義變更為先發明人申請主義。亦即於專利法第 102 條修正專利 申請，除非請求之發明於申請日前，曾經准許專利、記載於已發行刊物，或已公 開使用、銷售，或其他公眾可得到的之情形外，應予專利。另於專利法第 103 條 規定發明請求與申請日之前先前技術之整體差距，就有關所屬技術領域之人係顯 而易見即不得准予專利⁴⁰⁷。有關專利新穎性與進步性之判斷標準均改為以專利申 請日為準。新修正專利法一改原先係將專利授予第 1 位發明專利之人，不過仍然 透過上述調查程序，調和專利申請人非真正發明人之問題。使得在先發明人申請 主義制度下，若先申請人之發明係非自行創作，真正發明人即得經由專利審判及 上訴委員會之調查程序，而自先申請人取回專利申請權⁴⁰⁸。

406 See 35 U.S.C.§ 135(2012).

407 35 U.S.C. § 103(2012)(stating that a patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained,

notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.).

408 H.R. REP. 112-98(I), at 42(2011)(A new administrative proceeding–called a “derivation”

proceeding–is created to ensure that the first person to file the application is actually a true inventor.

This new proceeding will ensure that a person will not be able to obtain a patent for the invention that he did not actually invent. If a dispute arises as to which of two applicants is a true inventor (as opposed to who invented it first), it will be resolved through an administrative proceeding by the Patent Board. The Act also simplifies how prior art is determined, provides more certainty, and reduces the cost associated with filing and litigating patents.).

84