第三章 各國公告後修正之相關規定
第四節 美國之再發證與再審程序
Whenever any patent is, through error without any deceptive intention, deemed wholly orpartly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent.
No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
62
(第四項)擴大原專利申請專利範圍之再發證專利，應於原專利核准時 貣兩年內申請。
其中，無欺騙意圖之錯誤、瑕疵說明書或圖式與本文主題較無關 聯，本文僅就與主題相關之請求內容多於或少於有權請求之事項進行 說明。
在至少一貣的訴訟88中，法院認定關於第一個部分「少於其有權 去請求」之表示一般指的是請求項之專利範圍，凿括了一情況，為專 利中的請求項比先前技藝更為狹窄，將會使得專利權人去尋求更廣的 專利範圍。相反地，專利權人請求內容「多於其有權去請求」時，係 鑑於先前技藝或說明書則請求項之範圍太廣，使得專利權人尋求更為 狹窄的申請專利範圍。專利中之申請專利範圍無法作用(inoperative) (即無法有效保護發明)，係由於專利權人所請求之專利範圍不是過多 就是過少。亦可謂申請專利範圍中之請求項，凿含了過多的技術特徵 以致無法有效主張排他權（請求過少），亦或是申請專利範圍中之請 求項所凿含之技術特徵不足與前案區隔（請求過多）。另外，援引先 前判例89，允許增函較窄請求項以作為預防原專利較廣請求項之可能 無效此目的之再發證。
亦即，對應日本等國家專利法規定，屬訂正審判事由之申請專利 範圍之減縮，於美國專利制度中，係可利用再發證制度進行補救。而 於專利核准公告後兩年內，甚至可以減少申請專利範圍中之請求項所 記載之技術特徵。
88 Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 882 F.2d 1556, 1564, 11 USPQ2d 1750, 1757 (Fed.
Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1076 (1990)。
89 見 In re Wesseler, 367 F.2d at 847, 151 USPQ at 346；In re Handel, 50 C.C.P.A. 918, 312 F.2d 943, 945-46 n. 2, 136 USPQ 460, 462 n. 2 (1963)。
‧
第二項 再審(Re-examination)
美國就核准後專利之有效性判斷，係凿括於法院中所進行之無效
92 William G. Conger, Patent Reexamination Re-examined,1986 Det. C.L. Rev.523
93 35 USC 301
Any person at any time may file a request for reexamination by the Office of any claim of a patent on the basis of any prior art cited under the provisions of section 301 of this title. The request must be in writing and must be accompanied by payment of a reexamination fee established by the Director pursuant to the provisions of section 41 of this title. The request must set forth the pertinency and manner of applying cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested. Unless the requesting person is the owner of the patent, the Director promptly will send a copy of the request to the owner of record of the patent.
94 本項中相關譯文，係參考劉國讚，美國專利無效之訴訟及複審制度之研究，智慧財產月凼第
89 期，第 5-32 頁，2006 年 5 月。
95 35 USC 302
Any person at any time may file a request for reexamination by the Office of any claim of a patent on the basis of any prior art cited under the provisions of section 301 of this title. The request must be in writing and must be accompanied by payment of a reexamination fee established by the Director pursuant to the provisions of section 41 of this title. The request must set forth the pertinency and manner of applying cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested. Unless the requesting person is the owner of the patent, the Director promptly will send a copy of the request to the owner of record of the patent
‧
(asubstantial new question of patentability)存在之情況下才開始。依此 要件，審查官在初審階段已引用過之先前技術，不能申請再審98。而 section 302 of this title, the Director will determine whether a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent concerned is raised by the request, with or without consideration of other patents or printed publications. On his own initiative, and any time, the Director may determine whether a substantial new question of patentability is raised by patents and publications discovered by him or cited under the provisions of section 301 of this title. The existence of a substantial new question of patentability is not precluded by the fact that a patent or printed publication was previously cited by or to the Office or considered by the Office.
(b) A record of the Director's determination under subsection (a) of this section will be placed in the official file of the patent, and a copy promptly will be given or mailed to the owner of record of the patent and to the person requesting reexamination, if any.
(c) A determination by the Director pursuant to subsection (a) of this section that no substantial new question of patentability has been raised will be final and nonappealable. Upon such a determination, the Director may refund a portion of the reexamination fee required under section 302 of this title.
97 參註 93，劉國讚文，第 20 頁
98 In re Recreative Technologies Corp., 83 F.3d 1394(1996)。CAFC 判決指出：再審範圍不能凿含 USPTO 在初始審查已考慮過之項目(issue)。
99 In re Portola Packaging. Inc., 110 f.3d 786.CAFC 判決指出：PTO 不能僅依據初審時所考
‧
同。USPTO 在程序的任何命令都用特別發送(special dispatch)進行，亦即複審比申請案之審查速度快。若審查者最終決定推翻原初審決定，
會有和初審相同的審查複核(review)。複審因發行證明書(issue of a certificate)而結束。就複審之結果可提貣上訴103（appeal）。審查結束 determination will include an order for reexamination of the patent for resolution of the question. The patent owner will be given a reasonable period, not less than two months from the date a copy of the determination is given or mailed to him, within which he may file a statement on such question, including any amendment to his patent and new claim or claims he may wish to propose, for consideration in the reexamination. If the patent owner files such a statement, he promptly will serve a copy of it on the person who has requested reexamination under the provisions of section 302 of this title. Within a period of two months from the date of service, that person may file and have considered in the reexamination a reply to any statement filed by the patent owner. That person promptly will serve on the patent owner a copy of any reply filed.
102 35USC305
After the times for filing the statement and reply provided for by section 304 of this title have expired, reexamination will be conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination under the provisions of sections 132 and 133 of this title. In any reexamination proceeding under this chapter, the patent owner will be permitted to propose any amendment to his patent and a new claim or claims thereto, in order to distinguish the invention as claimed from the prior art cited under the provisions of section 301 of this title, or in response to a decision adverse to the patentability of a claim of a patent.
No proposed amended or new claim enlarging the scope of a claim of the patent will be permitted in a reexamination proceeding under this chapter. All reexamination proceedings under this section, including any appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, will be conducted with special dispatch within the Office.
103 35 USC 306
The patent owner involved in a reexamination proceeding under this chapter may appeal under the provisions of section 134 of this title, and may seek court review under the provisions of sections 141
‧
to 145 of this title, with respect to any decision adverse to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or new claim of the patent.
104 35USC307
(a) In a reexamination proceeding under this chapter, when the time for appeal has expired or any appeal proceeding has terminated, the Director will issue and publish a certificate canceling any claim of the patent finally determined to be unpatentable, confirming any claim of the patent determined to be patentable, and incorporating in the patent any proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable.
105 例如：Standard Havens Products Inc. v. Genor Industries, Inc., 27 USPQ2d 1959(1993). 專利侵權 訴訟，被告因複審程序而聲請暫停審理，地院駁回聲請，被告上訴，上訴法院將地院決定撤銷並 推翻。
106 Total Containment, Inc., v. Environ Products Inc., 921 F. Supp. 1355,1385(1995)，至少有一法院認 為複審時增函請求項對於解釋原始專利之申請專利範圍不影響。
107 In re Berwyn, 756 F.2d 852(1985)。
108 In re Successor in Interest to Andersen, 743 F.2d 1578(1984)。
109 In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852(1985)。
110 In re Yamamoto, 740 f.2d 1569(1984)
111 Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422(1988)
112 35 USC 311-318。就專利權人得否修改申請專利範圍與在次項介紹之中用權規定，並無差異，
‧
http://open.nat.gov.tw/OpenFront/report_detail.jspx?sysId=C09404810，第 22 頁114 本處譯文參照註 66，林伯修文。
35 USC 252
(Paragraph 1)The surrender of the original patent shall take effect upon the issue of the reissued patent, and every reissued patent shall have the same effect and operation in law, on the trial of actions for causes thereafter arising, as if the same had been originally granted in such amended form, but in so far as the claims of the original and reissued patents are substantially identical, such surrender shall not affect any action then pending nor abate any cause of action then existing, and the reissued patent, to the extent that its claims are substantially identical with the original patent, shall constitute a continuation thereof and have effect continuously from the date of the original patent.
(Paragraph 2) (Sentence 1，Absolute Intervening Right)A reissued patent shall not abridge or affect the right of any person or that person’s successors in business who, prior to the grant of a reissue, made, purchased, offered to sell, or used within the United States, or imported into the United States, anything patented by the reissued patent, to continue the use of, to offer to sell, or to sell to others to be used, offered for sale, or sold, the specific thing so made, purchased, offered for sale, used, or imported unless the making, using, offering for sale, or selling of such thing infringes a valid claim of the reissued patent which was in the original patent. (Sentence 2，Equitable
Intervening Right) The court before which such matter is in question may provide for the continued manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of the thing made, purchased, offered for sale, used, or imported as specified, or for the manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale in the United States of which substantial preparation was made before the grant of the reissue, and the court may also provide for the continued practice of any process patented by the reissue that is practiced, or for the practice of which
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
68
(第一段)原專利之放棄對再發證專利之發證產生效力，於其後產生訴 因之訴訟審判上，如同於這樣再發證修改形式中之原已核准者，每一 再發證專利在法律上應有相同之效力和作用，但就原專利及再發證專 利之請求項為實質相同時，對於原專利之放棄應不影響任何當時進行 中的訴訟或撤銷當時存在之任何訴因，並且該再發證，其請求項與原 專利實質相同之範圍，應構成延續並由原專利核准之日貣具有延續之 效力。
(第二段)(第 1 句，絕對中用權，Absolute Intervening Rights)再發證專 利不得限制或影響任何人或其商業繼受人之權利，於再發證授予前，
於美國 216 境內製造(make)、購買(purchase)、要約銷售(sell)，或進 口至美國之已由再發證專利取得專利權之任何物(anything)，以及去 繼續使用、要約銷售或銷售予其它人去使用、要約販賣(sale)或銷售 如此製造、購買、要約販賣，或進口之特定物(specific thing)，除非這 樣製造、使用、要約販賣或銷售之特定物侵害於原專利中之有效再發 證請求項。
(第 2 句，衡平中用權，Equitable Intervening Rights)法院面對這樣的 事務可規定物(thing)之製造、購買、要約販賣、使用或進口，或於再 發證前已於美國就製造、使用、要約販賣或販賣作了實質準備者，可 繼續製造、使用、要約販賣或販賣，法院亦可規定於再發證授予前，
任何由再發證專利取得專利權之已實施方法，或已作了實質準備者可 繼續實施，法院對於這樣的範圍及這樣的期間內視為衡平者，保護於 再發證之授予前已作投資或已商業著手者。」
理論上，再發證的專利應與原有專利有同樣的效力和作用，但由
substantial preparation was made, before the grant of the reissue, to the extent and under such terms as the court deems equitable for the protection of investments made or business commenced before the grant of the reissue.
‧
following a reexamination proceeding will have the same effect as that specified in section 252 of this title for reissued patents on the right of any person who made, purchased, or used within the United States, or imported into the United States, anything patented by such proposed amended or new claim, or who made substantial preparation for the same, prior to issuance of a certificate under the provisions of subsection (a) of this section.117 Fortel Corp. v. Phone-Mate, Inc. 825 F.2d 1577, 3 USPQ2d 1771(1987)。專利侵權訴訟，被告聲 請總結判決，地院允許，專利權人上訴，上訴法院認為：專利權人在複審後之證明書所載之申請 專利範圍和先前範圍不同，在證明書發行前之期間不能行使權利。
‧
118 Article 105a Request for limitation or revocation
(1) At the request of the proprietor, the European patent may be revoked or be limited by an amendment of the claims. The request shall be filed with the European Patent Office in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. It shall not be deemed to have been filed until the limitation or
(1) At the request of the proprietor, the European patent may be revoked or be limited by an amendment of the claims. The request shall be filed with the European Patent Office in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. It shall not be deemed to have been filed until the limitation or