增訂舉發人撤回舉發後，智財局得依職權繼續進行審理之

徑，藉以調和專利權人與公眾之利益³³⁴，因而公眾審查制度有其公益性，藉由公 眾之協助，使專利專責機關得以就其核准之專利再次予以審查，使專利權之授予 更臻無誤，以提升專利品質，並使公眾得以知悉專利是否確實有效。

既然公眾審查制度之設計目的有公益性，倘申請人和專利權人達成和解或撤 回申請案時，專利專責機關應如何處理，是否應基於公益目的而繼續進行審理，

抑或是基於雙方當事人已和解或撤回申請案而終結程序?歐洲專利公約和美國專 利法均賦予審理機關選擇權，未強制審理機關應繼續進行審理程序或終結程序，

而係讓審理機關依職權自行判斷，通常審理機關於審理過程中認為專利明顯無效，

且專利權人未更正，則將選擇繼續進行審理程序³³⁵。

而我國舉發制度之設計，一旦舉發人欲撤回舉發案，即使專利權人已進行答 辯，只要專利權人同意，舉發人即得撤回舉發案，此時智財局即終結程序，不再 繼續進行審理程序，如此將使得公眾對於可能無效之專利是否確實有效仍無法得 知，將無法達成公眾審查制度提升專利品質之目的，因此，本文認為公眾審查制 度既有其公益性，縱使舉發人撤回舉發案時，智財局仍應繼續審理，倘礙於行政

334 2013 年版專利審查基準第五篇 5-1-IV。

335 See Filip De Corte et al, supra note 33, at 134；European Patent Convention art. 84(2).

165

資源有限，無法對每一撤回案件均繼續審理，至少應仿照美國複審制度和歐洲異 議制度之設計，賦予審理機關自行判斷是否繼續審理程序或終結程序之選擇權，

使其得於審查過程中得明顯看出專利無效之情形，繼續進行審理程序，以避免舉 發人和專利權人為各自之利益達成和解而撤回舉發案時，舉發審理程序即終結，

罔顧社會大眾之利益，無法提升專利品質。

167

參考文獻 一、 中文文獻

(一)專書

陳文吟，我國專利制度之研究，5 版，2010 年 3 月

曾陳明汝著、蔡明誠續著，兩岸暨歐美專利法，3 版，2009 年 1 月。

劉孔中、Heinz Goddar、Christian W.Appelt、蔡季芬合著，歐洲專利實務指南，

2013 年，初版。

謝銘洋，智慧財產權法，2 版，2011 年 9 月。

(二)專書論文

熊誦梅，當公法遇上私法—從專利訴訟制度談起，載：當公法遇上私法 : 台灣 智慧財產訴訟制度之今昔，頁 1-24，2011 年。

(三)學位論文

朱浩筠，公眾審查制度與專利品質之關聯性研究，政治大學法律研究所碩士論文，

2009 年。

張君如，美國專利無效雙軌制之研究，國立中正大學財法所，2010 年 01 月。

劉國讚，專利舉發之行政程序與訴訟制度研究，國立政治大學法學院法律碩士在 職專班碩士論文，2009 年 7 月。

賴柏翰，美國專利核准後行政撤銷機制之現在與未來--以再審查與核准後複審為 中心，國立交通大學科技法律研究所，2011 年 7 月。

藍仁駿，專利公眾審查制度之研究，國立成功大學法律學系，2013 年。

簡子婷，歐洲專利制度整合之研究，南華大學歐洲研究所，2005 年 7 月。

(四)期刊論文

朱浩筠、黃濟陽，簡介我國專利舉發審查基準修正重點（二），智慧財產權月刊，

第 165 期，頁 28-43，2012 年 9 月。

吳雅貞，專利新法「部分准駁原則」與「專利權人更正利益」之交錯――最高行

168

政法院 101 年度判字第 106 號判決評析，萬國法律，第 187 期，頁 11-21，

2013 年 2 月

宋皇志，我國更正制度中「實質變更申請專利範圍」之要件初探，專利師，第 8 期，頁 12-29，2012 年 1 月

林國塘，專利更正實質變更案例研析－－以 98 行專訴第 78 號及 99 行專訴第 28 號為中心，智慧財產權，頁 77-105，2011 年 06。

洪珮瑜，專利舉發爭訟程序之原則，萬國法律，第 180 期，頁 72-77，2011 年 12 月。

洪佩瑜，專利舉發及民事訴訟中專利有效性之職權審查，萬國法律，第 188 期，

頁 28-34，2013 年 4 月。

孫寶成，兩岸專利舉發、無效宣告實務比較，專利師，第 13 期，頁 44-62，2013 年 4 月。

高山峰，專利權之整體性與舉發審查的探討，專利師，第 1 期，頁 75-81，2010 年 4 月。

高山峰，我國之專利無效審判原則的探討―與日本專利無效制度之比較，專利師，

第 6 期，頁 66-82，2011 年 7 月。

張耀文，簡介我國專利舉發審查基準修正重點（ㄧ），智慧財產權月刊，第 165 期，頁 7-27，2012 年 9 月。

許凱婷，從我國專利案件行政訴訟實務看「專利權人提出更正之時間點」，專利 師，第 8 期，頁 1-11，2012 年 1 月。

陳邦禮，專利舉發之行政審查與司法審判，專利師，第 4 期，頁 36-45，2011 年 01 月。

黃于珊；蘇三榮，新專利法關於舉發規定之介紹與評析，全國律師，第 16 卷 6 期，頁 29-39，2012 年 6 月。

黃銘傑，申請專利範圍、請求項及更正之法律議題研析，專利師， 10 期，頁 57-79，

2012 年 07 月。

劉國讚，論專利侵害訴訟中對專利無效抗辯之更正，萬國法律，第 178 期，頁 13-25，2011 年 8 月。

劉國讚，新專利法有關舉發之修正及其實務影響，萬國法律，第 184 期，頁 35-48，

169

2012 年 8 月。

簡秀如，專利舉發程序中之申請專利範圍更正，理律法律雜誌雙月刊，頁 7-8，

2010 年 9 月。

簡秀如，專利舉發制度的變革，理律法律雜誌雙月刊，頁 3-5，2011 年 3 月。

二、 外文文獻

(一)專書

FOX,DAVID L.,U.S.PARENT OPINIONS AND EVALUATIONS (2d ed. 2013).

MUELLER,JANICE M.,PATENT LAW (4^th ed.2013)

PATERSON,GERALD,THE EUROPEAN PATENT SYSTEM:THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF THE

EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION (2d ed. 2001).

RUDGE,ANDREW,GUIDE TO EUROPEAN PATENTS (2013).

(二)專書論文

Gordon, Lori A. & Perry, Glenn J., Post-Grant Invalidity Chal Post-Grant Invalidity

Challenges at the uspto lenges at the uspto ： Congress Built It, But Will They Come?, in T

HE IMPACT OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT:LEADING

LAWYERS ON INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2011 101(ASPATORE,2011).

Marsnik, Susan J., Will the America Invents Act Post-Grant review Improve the

Quality of Patents? A Comparison with the European Patent Office Opposition, in T

HE CHANGING FACE OF AMERICAN PATENT LAW AND ITS

IMPACT ON BUSINESS 183 (Daniel R. Cahoy & Lynda J. Oswald, eds. ,2012) Miller, Jason S., Developing a Patent Strategy: a Brave New World, inDEVELOPING A

PATENT STRATEGY: LEADING LAWYERS ON UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF

AIACHANGES AND HELPING CLIENTS PROTECT THEIR IP7(ASPATORE,2014).

Wang, Lisa H., Patent Strategies in a Post-AIA Environment , in DEVELOPING A

PATENT STRATEGY,2014EDITION:LEADING LAWYERS ON UNDERSTANDING THE

IMPACT OF AIA CHANGES AND HELPING CLIENTS PROTECT THEIR IP 23(ASPATORE,2014).

170

(三)期刊論文

Carrier, Michael A., Post-Grant Opposition a Proposal and a Comparison to the

America Invents Act, 45

U.C.DAVIS L.REV.103(2011)

Corte, Filip Dee et al, AIA Post-Grant Review & European Oppositions: Will They

Work in Tandem, or Rather Pass Like Ships in the Night?, 14

N.C. J.L. &

TECH.93 (2012).

Daniels, Scott M. & Addison, Kate, Why Wait for Oppositions?,47 I

DEA

343(2007).

Fossen, Kayla, the Post-Grant Problem: America Invents Falling Short, 14MINN.J.L.

SCI.&TECH.573 (2013)

Greenleaf, Kevin et al, Comparing the Opposition Proceedings of Europe, China, and

the United States, 5

NO.6LANDSLIDE 36 ( 2013).

Gupta, Paul R. & Feerst, Alex., The US patent system after the Leahy-Smith America

invents act, E

UROPEAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REVIEW 60 (2012).

Janicke, Paul M., Overview of the New Patent Law of the United States , 21 TEX. INTELL.PROP.L.J.63,64(2013).

Lorang, Karen A., the Unintended Consequences of Post-Grant Review of Patents, 17UCLAJ.L.&TECH.1(2013).

Stoll, Robert L. , Maintaining Post-Grant Review Estoppel in the America Invents Act:

a Call for Legislative Restraint, 2012 Patently-O Pat. L.J. 1 ( 2012)

Upshaw, Everett, The Changing Landscape of Patent Litigation , 50-FEB TRIAL 44 (2014).

(四)網站資源

歐洲專利局

http://www.epo.org/

美國專利商標局

http://www.uspto.gov/

經濟部智慧財產局

http://www.tipo.gov.tw/

經濟部訴願委員會

http://www.moea.gov.tw/MNS/aa/home/Home.aspx

全國法規資料庫

http://law.moj.gov.tw/

法源法律網

http://www.lawbank.com.tw/

公務出國報告資訊

http://report.nat.gov.tw/ReportFront/rpt_search.jspx

171

馮震宇，美國專利救濟制度改革複審救濟程序效益顯現，專利情報

http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=9730

徐仰賢，美國專利訴訟外之新選項—多方複審程序(IPR)介紹暨實務分析，專利 情報

http://cdnet.stpi.narl.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2013/pclass_13_A185.htm

經濟部訴願審議委員會訴願案件統計資料

http://www.moea.gov.tw/MNS/aa/content/ContentLink.aspx?menu_id=9960

經濟部訴願審議委員會之組織編制

https://www.moea.gov.tw/Mns/aa/content/Content.aspx?menu_id=9878

USPTO Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data ‐ September 30, 2013

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/stats/ex_parte_historical_stats_roll_up_EOY2013.pdf

USPTO Inter Parte Reexamination Filing Data- September 30, 2013

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/stats/inter_parte_historical_stats_roll_up_EOY2013.pdf

USPTO AIA Frequently Asked Questions ─Post Grant Review

http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs_post_grant_review.jsp

USPTO AIA Frequently Asked Questions ─Inter Partes Reexamination

http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs_inter_partes_review.jsp

USPTO AIA Statistics

http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/statistics.jsp

EPO Annual report 2013

http://www.epo.org/about-us/annual-reports-statistics/annual-report/2013/statistics-tre nds/searches.html

Dehns Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys

http://www.dehns.com/cms/document/oppositions_at_the_epo.pdf

173

附錄一： 專有名詞中英對照表

機關名稱

中文名稱 原文名稱

歐洲專利局 EPO

美國專利商標局 USPTO

異議部門 Opposition division 審查部門 Examining Division

中央再審查組 Central Reexamination Unit 專利上訴及爭議委員會 Board of Patent Appeals and

Interference

專利審判及上訴委員會 patent trial and appeal board

聯邦巡迴上訴法院 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

程序名稱

中文名稱 原文名稱

異議程序 Opposition

假定侵權者參與程序 Intervention of the assumed infringer 限縮或撤銷程序 Limitation and revocation procedure

上訴程序 Appeal

單方再審查程序 Ex parte reexamination 雙方再審查程序 Inter partes reexamination 核准後複審程序 Post-grant review

雙方複審程序 Inter partes review

175

附錄二： 歐洲專利異議制度相關法條之原文對照表

Opposition

Article 99 (1) Within nine months of the publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin, any person may give notice to the European Patent Office of opposition to that patent, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations.

Notice of opposition shall not be deemed to have been filed until the opposition fee has been paid.

(2) The opposition shall apply to the European patent in all the Contracting States in which that patent has effect.

(3) Opponents shall be parties to the opposition proceedings as well as the proprietor of the patent.

(4) Where a person provides evidence that in a Contracting State, following a final decision, he has been entered in the patent register of such State instead of the previous proprietor, such person shall, at his request, replace the previous proprietor in respect of such State. Notwithstanding Article 118, the previous proprietor and the person making the request shall not be regarded as joint proprietors unless both so request.

Article 100 Opposition may only be filed on the grounds that:

(a) the subject-matter of the European patent is not patentable under Articles 52 to 57;

(b) the European patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art;

(c) the subject-matter of the European patent extends beyond the content of the application as filed, or, if the patent was granted on a divisional application or on a new application filed under Article 61, beyond the content of the earlier application as filed.

Article 101 (1) If the opposition is admissible, the Opposition Division shall examine, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations, whether at least one ground for opposition under Article 100 prejudices the maintenance of the European patent. During this examination, the Opposition Division shall invite the parties, as often as necessary, to file observations on communications from another party or issued by itself.

176

(2) If the Opposition Division is of the opinion that at least one ground for opposition prejudices the maintenance of the European patent, it shall revoke the patent. Otherwise, it shall reject the opposition.

(3) If the Opposition Division is of the opinion that, taking into consideration the amendments made by the proprietor of the European patent during the opposition proceedings, the patent and the invention to which it relates

(a) meet the requirements of this Convention, it shall decide to maintain the patent as amended, provided that the conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulations are fulfilled;

(b) do not meet the requirements of this Convention, it shall revoke the patent.

Article 102 (Deleted)

Article 103 If the European patent is maintained as amended under Article 101, paragraph 3(a), the European Patent Office shall publish a new specification of the European patent as soon as possible after the mention of the opposition decision has been published in the European Patent Bulletin.

Article 104 (1) Each party to the opposition proceedings shall bear the costs it has incurred, unless the Opposition Division, for reasons of equity, orders, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations, a

different apportionment of costs.

(2) The procedure for fixing costs shall be laid down in the Implementing Regulations.

(3) Any final decision of the European Patent Office fixing the amount of costs shall be dealt with, for the purpose of enforcement in the Contracting States, in the same way as a final decision given by a civil court of the State in which enforcement is to take place.

Verification of such decision shall be limited to its authenticity.

Rule 75 An opposition may be filed even if the European patent has been surrendered in all the designated Contracting States or has lapsed in all those States.

Rule 76 (1) Notice of opposition shall be filed in a written reasoned statement.

(2) The notice of opposition shall contain:

(a) particulars of the opponent as provided in Rule 41, paragraph 2(c);

177

(b) the number of the European patent against which

opposition is filed, the name of the proprietor of the patent and the title of the invention;

(c) a statement of the extent to which the European patent is opposed and of the grounds on which the opposition is based, as well as an indication of the facts and evidence presented in support of these grounds;

(d) if the opponent has appointed a representative, particulars as provided in Rule 41, paragraph 2(d).

(3) Part III of the Implementing Regulations shall apply mutatis mutandis to the notice of opposition.

Rule 77 (1)If the Opposition Division notes that the notice of opposition does not comply with Article 99, paragraph 1, or Rule 76,

paragraph 2(c), or does not sufficiently identify the patent against which opposition has been filed, it shall reject the opposition as inadmissible, unless these deficiencies have been remedied before expiry of the opposition period.

(2) If the Opposition Division notes that the notice of opposition does not comply with provisions other than those referred to in paragraph 1, it shall communicate this to the opponent and shall invite him to remedy the deficiencies noted within a period to be specified. If the deficiencies are not remedied in due time, the Opposition Division shall reject the opposition as inadmissible.

(3) The decision to reject an opposition as inadmissible shall be communicated to the proprietor of the patent, together with a copy of the notice of opposition.

Rule 78 (1) If a third party provides evidence, during opposition

Rule 78 (1) If a third party provides evidence, during opposition

在文檔中 專利核准後公眾審查制度之研究─以美國、歐洲及台灣相關法制比較為中心 (頁 178-200)