此種判斷的結果是均等成立，且先前技術阻卻成立，不侵權。 ^^^^^^^^^^ 此處所謂的「均等成立」，不是代表真的「均等成立」，僅是一種假設。 要推翻一個理論，有時從正面的論證很難著手或說服人， 此時，可先假設它成立，再利用反面的論證方式，推翻此假設。 亦即，預先假設均等成立，再利用「先前技術阻卻」來測設假設的均等範圍。 僅有通過「先前技術阻卻」的測設，此時“真的”均等才成立。 什麼是「均等」？這是很難有一個統一的客觀的答案， 法官嘗試著創造各種的方法，來儘可能地找出一個客觀的範圍。 從積極的角度，亦即使用「function, way, result」或insubstantial differences 」 等方法，將文字範圍擴大至均等範圍。但，擴大後的範圍，適當嗎？ 而且，每個人擴大後的範圍也可能不一樣啊，從多個均等範圍， 如何選一個適當的均等範圍？ 因此，法官再創造出「先前技術阻卻」或「禁反言」的方法， 從消極面的角度，來確認「擴大後的範圍」是否合理；或者是否能夠「擴大範圍」。 基本上，這些都是方法論，用來決定是否適用均等的方法，僅有通過這些方法 的範圍，才是適當的均等範圍，此時均等侵權才能夠成立。 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). 專利侵害鑑定要點第 44 頁 (三) 判斷「先前技術阻卻」之注意事項 1.主張「先前技術阻卻」有利於被告，故應由被告負舉證責任。若被告未主張「先前 技術阻卻」，他人不得主動提供相關先前技術資料，以判斷待鑑定對象是否適用「 先前技術阻卻」。 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. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 111.243.171.9