馬庫西式請求項（Markush Type Claim）是常見的專利請求項撰寫方式之一，多用於化學、生技等專利案，其格式為「selected from the group consisting of A, B and C」，而這次聯邦法院 （Federal Circuit） 針對Multilayer v. Berry案的判決，再次提醒申請人對Markush Claim釋義時該注意的事項。
「28. A multi-layer, thermoplastic stretch wrap film containing seven polymeric layers, comprising:
（a） two outer layers, at least one of which having a cling performance of at least 100 grams/inch, said outer layer being selected from the group consisting of linear low density polyethylene, very low density polyethylene, and ultra low density polyethylene resins, said resins being homopolymers, copolymers, or terpolymers, of ethylene and alpha-olefins; and
（b） five inner layers, with each layer being selected from the group consisting of linear low density polyethylene （LLDPE）, very low density polyethylene （VLDPE）, ultra low density polyethylene （ULDPE）, and metallocene-catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resins （mLLDPE）; said resins being homopolymers, copolymers, or terpolymers, of ethylene and C.sub.3 to C.sub.20 alpha-olefins,
wherein at least one of said inner layers comprises a metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin with a melt index of 0.5 to 3 dg/min and a melt index ratio of 16 to 80.」
此外，聯邦法院法官基於claim解釋第1點的結論，進一步確認附屬項Claim 10為無效。Claim 10記載：「The multi-layer, thermoplastic stretch wrap film of claim 1, wherein at least one said inner layer comprises low density polyethylene homopolymer （LDPE）…」，由於Claim 1已經確定是只能包含所列四種樹脂（LLDPE、VLDPE、ULDPE以及mLLDPE），所以Claim 10記載inner layer包括LDPE就是與Claim 1衝突了，因Claim 1已經排除LDPE，導致Claim 10不符合35 U.S.C. § 112（d）之規定。
Abbott案中指出Markush Claim若沒有寫出mixtures thereof則應被解釋為one and only one of，也就是不包含元素之混合，此論點同時也是地院的判決依據。聯邦法院法官認為所有型態的claims，包含Markush Claim，的解釋必須依據請求項、說明書、答辯歷史等任何相關外在證據，法官認為'055的說明書有記載樹脂可混合，獨立項本身所列之linear low density polyethylene （LLDPE）與metallocene-catalyzed linear low density polyethylene （mLLDPE）也可說明樹脂之混合。此外，法官提及Abbott案中對於mixture的推定與consisting of的推定有所區別且強度也不同。
結論
在實務上，對於 consisting of的解釋已無太多疑問，用了封閉語法就不要期待可以擴張到未列之元件，至於混合的部分，其實通常撰稿時會於句末加上combinations thereof，例如「selected from the group consisting of A, B, C and combinations thereof」，所以此判例應是提醒申請人若是忘了在claim寫入混合字眼，可試圖以說明書有記載之內容來補救，最後就是Claim 10因為與所依附項相牴觸而無效的部分，這提醒申請人應於使用封閉語法時要特別注意後項所載內容是否與前項範圍有所衝突。
與軟體專利有效性常見爭議包括標的是否適格，例如美國最高法院在2010年Bilski v. Kappos案討論商業方法適格性與軟體申請專利之標的是否適格有關。2014年美國最高法院再度於Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International，討論專利標的適格性問題。2014年美國最高法院則在Nautilus v. Biosig案中，建立用語欠缺明確性新的判斷標準。最高法院見解出爐後，陸續於CAFC討論新的見解時適用。以下將以主觀性用語為探討核心。
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
2014年美國最高法院在Nautilus v. Biosig案中，對於用語欠缺明確性提供新的判斷標準。本案爭執專利為U. S. Patent No. 5,337,753（753專利），在1994年授予專利，發明人為Dr. Gregory Lekhtman，專利權人為Biosig Instruments公司。
753的專利為運動的心速監測器。本案專利訴訟爭議在'753專利請求項就提到"heart rate monitor for use by a user in association with exercise apparatus and/or exercise procedures."（心速監測器被一個使用者用於運動裝置及/或運動程序），請求項"comprise[s],"（包含），以下其他元件：一個圓柱物並與展示裝置連結（a cylindrical bar fitted with a display device）、電子線路包含不同放大器（electronic circuitry including a difference amplifier）、一個圓柱物的每一半部，有一個活性（live）電極與一個通常性（common）電極，兩電極彼此以空間關係（in spaced relationship）耦合。爭議為"spaced relationship"的用語是否明確？本案於CAFC，法院判斷請求性用語是否明確，其所適用的標準係指解讀當請求項包含之用語，如果該用語並非"not amenable to construction"（無法解釋）或並非"insolubly ambiguous"（無法解決地模糊），則請求性用語具明確性。
在Nautilus案之後，2014年CAFC院首度在Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc乙案中，以最高法院在Nautilus v. Biosi所建立標準，判斷主觀用語是否明確性的問題，該案發生用語爭議為：「以一種不干擾方式，而不使使用者分心（an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user）」。不干擾方式（unobtrusive manner）事實上是一種具有主觀判斷的抽象用語。法院審理時，認為專利人主張"unobtrusive manner"係以螢幕保護（screen saver）模式與螢幕背景（wallpaper）間的空間關係來定義。但法院由專利說明書內容來看，該熟悉領域技藝之人由專利說明書可以獲知（informed）「unobtrusive manner」可能是一種空間（spatial meaning）觀念，但是專利說明書其他部分也可能使該領域技藝之人將「unobtrusive manner」用語界定為一種暫時性（temporal dimension）連結概念，因此該用語並不明確。況且說明書並未提供足夠且充分案例，說明螢幕保護模式與螢幕背景連結，因此認為「unobtrusive manner」用語欠缺明確。簡單來說，如果使用抽象性的用語可能造成多種解釋的意義，而在說明書無法界定其範圍，則將被認定為欠缺明確。
然而在DDR Holding vs Hotel.com乙案，CAFC判定"look and feel"（介面外觀視覺感知要素）用語明確。法院基於三個主要理由，認為該用語明確：1. 專利申請人在說明書所建立的案例足以建立其用語意義，2. 被告也使用視覺感知要素來說明自己產品，同時3. 被告承認其與客戶都理解切面外觀一詞意涵。CAFC進一步闡釋，所謂用語不明確係指用語「完全取決於特定個人之未受限且主觀意見…...實施發明時，如所屬技術領域具備通常技藝之人無法自專利說明書獲得教示的指引」。因此，在說明書中如果可以提供具體與明確案例，通常可以通過明確性的檢驗。
When was last time that your company made a renewal payment? How much does your company spend on maintaining its patents every year? And more importantly, how much of this money went into the pockets of your patent agency? This figure may be well beyond what you might imagine.
Although it normally takes 4-5 years from application to grant, being granted a patent is by no means the end of the patent process; on the contrary, you should see it rather as a starting-out point. Just one slip-up, such as forgetting to pay a fee at the allotted time, could result in you losing your patent.
Companies usually assign responsibility for renewal payments to their in-house legal or IP departments; however, they may not be able to dedicate a specific staff member or team to each country in which the company holds patents, if the company's scale and costs make this unviable. For this reason, a common choice for most firms is to outsource renewals to a dedicated renewals agency, which gives these agencies relatively free-reign when it comes to pricing.
In economic theory, adverse selection occurs when there is an asymmetry of information between a buyer and a seller. If buyers can't distinguish between high-quality and low quality products, they will only be willing to pay an average of the price of a high quality item and a low quality item; the seller, knowing which items are high quality and which are low quality will use this knowledge to sell the low quality items at an inflated price and then move out of the market without selling the high-quality items. This leads to high-quality goods being eliminated from the market. If we apply this concept to the patent renewals industry, we can see that large international renewals agencies first offer low service fees to entice unsuspecting clients, and then take advantage of the client's lack of knowledge about renewal payments to make unreasonable profits by quoting inaccurate renewal fees. There has already been substantial discussion of this issue in the international IP community after an article entitled �Hidden Fees: Foreign Exchange and the Dark Side of Patent Renewals� was published on the website of UK renewals agency RenewalsDesk, which exposed the underhand practices of many international renewals agencies.
Table 1: How disreputable agencies use the exchange rate to defraud their clients
The prices quoted below relate to patent renewal fees payable on the 15th year of a patent with 17 claims registered with the Japan Patent Office (JPO). The official fee quoted by the JPO is ¥143,000.
Taipei-based Mega International Commercial Bank quoted a spot exchange rate of NT$0.27 against the yen for Nov. 13, 2014.
※ You can see from the table that Renewals Agency A adopted a spot rate of NT$0.29 against the yen, while NAIP PVIGO e-Services used the rate of NT$0.27 quoted by the bank. Although Renewals Agency A offers a lower service fee, the total cost to the client is still NT$2,325 more than that quoted by NAIP's PVIGO e-Services platform (See Figure 2).
Figure 1: Spot rate for Taiwanese dollar against the yen in 2014
沒有留言:
張貼留言