| Summary: | 當申請專利範圍與被控物兩者之間存在非實質性差異時，即成立均等構成專利侵害。美國最高法院於Graver Tank 一案中使用了我們所熟知的功能／方式／結果三部測試法來決定實質差異，此即我們所熟知的均等論。美國最高法院更於Warner Jenkinson 一案中再一次確認均等的決定應採逐項比對的方式。
逐項測試法將比對範圍放在構成要件上有其優點，然而，透過對美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決的研究，本文發現採逐項比對的方式有其不足之處，對侵權與否之認定甚至會造成截然不同的結果。本文擬從美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院的判決，經由系爭技術層面適用均等測試之探討，指出逐項測試法不盡周延之處，同時探討均等測試採整體觀察法的必要性。
To constitute patent infringement under doctrine of equivalents, it dictates that there must present insubstantial difference between claimed invention and accusation. In Graver Tank, U.S. Surpreme Court utilized the so-called functionway-result tripartite test to characterize the equivalency. There are two approachs before CAFC: one is by element-by-element test, the other is by invention as a whole. The outcomes of infringement analysis will hinge upon what accused counterpart should be the subject of comparision. Elemental approach reveals advantages when focusing counterpart on the component basis. However, we found that this approach shows incompletely and adversely result during analysis after reviewed the rationales underlying cases before CAFC. Via technical discussion to the application of doctrine of equivalents, this article shows the incomprehensive perspective of elemental approach and explores the entirety approach as a necessity under certain circumstance.
|
|---|
