此种判断的结果是均等成立，且先前技术阻却成立，不侵权。 ^^^^^^^^^^ 此处所谓的「均等成立」，不是代表真的「均等成立」，仅是一种假设。 要推翻一个理论，有时从正面的论证很难着手或说服人， 此时，可先假设它成立，再利用反面的论证方式，推翻此假设。 亦即，预先假设均等成立，再利用「先前技术阻却」来测设假设的均等范围。 仅有通过「先前技术阻却」的测设，此时“真的”均等才成立。 什麽是「均等」？这是很难有一个统一的客观的答案， 法官尝试着创造各种的方法，来尽可能地找出一个客观的范围。 从积极的角度，亦即使用「function, way, result」或insubstantial differences 」 等方法，将文字范围扩大至均等范围。但，扩大後的范围，适当吗？ 而且，每个人扩大後的范围也可能不一样啊，从多个均等范围， 如何选一个适当的均等范围？ 因此，法官再创造出「先前技术阻却」或「禁反言」的方法， 从消极面的角度，来确认「扩大後的范围」是否合理；或者是否能够「扩大范围」。 基本上，这些都是方法论，用来决定是否适用均等的方法，仅有通过这些方法 的范围，才是适当的均等范围，此时均等侵权才能够成立。 http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1029.html It is well settled law that a patentee cannot assert a range of equivalents that encompasses the prior art. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Assocs., 904 F.2d 677, 683, 14 USPQ2d 1942, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To test this limit, the notion of a hypothetical claim may be useful. Id. at 684, 14 USPQ2d at 1948. A hypothetical claim may be constructed to literally cover the accused device. Id. If such a claim would be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, then the patentee has overreached, and the accused device is noninfringing as a matter of law. Id. at 683-84, 14 USPQ2d at 1948. The burden of producing evidence of prior art to challenge a hypothetical claim rests with an accused infringer, but the burden of proving patentability of the hypothetical claim rests with the patentee. Streamfeeder, LLC v. Sure-Feed Sys., Inc., 175 F.3d 974, 984, 50 USPQ2d 1515, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 专利侵害监定要点第 44 页 (三) 判断「先前技术阻却」之注意事项 1.主张「先前技术阻却」有利於被告，故应由被告负举证责任。若被告未主张「先前 技术阻却」，他人不得主动提供相关先前技术资料，以判断待监定对象是否适用「 先前技术阻却」。 The burden of producing evidence of prior art to challenge a hypothetical claim rests with an accused infringer, but the burden of proving patentability of the hypothetical claim rests with the patentee. Streamfeeder, LLC v. Sure-Feed Sys., Inc., 175 F.3d 974, 984, 50 USPQ2d 1515, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1999). http://www.bakerbotts.com/64/infocenter/publications/detail.aspx?id=1974 "Hypothetical claim analysis" is a methodology for assisting in the determination as to whether the patentee, in asserting a right to exclude under the doctrine of equivalents, has exceeded the bounds of the third limitation and impermissibly ensnared the prior art. Typically, a "hypothetical" claim is drafted to read on the accused device or system. This is called a "hypothetical claim" because it has not been issued within a patent – it is an assumption. The next question is whether this hypothetical claim would have been allowed to issue in a patent by the Patent Office (i.e., is the hypothetical claim patentable over the prior art?). If so, then the doctrine of equivalents would apply – the prior art would not preclude assertion of a range of equivalents to cover the accused product. --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 111.243.171.9