方法限定产品权利要求的保护范围

发布时间：2018-04-29 21:23

本文选题：方法限定产品权利要求 + 产品限定法　；参考：《华南理工大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：专利法将权利要求分为两种,产品权利要求和方法权利要求。一般来说,产品权利要求对应产品的组成、结构,方法权利要求对应步骤。“用方法限定产品权利要求”保护的主题是产品,但该产品的限定特征则是生产该产品的方法。在对该类权利要求的新颖性、创造性的判断上以及对保护范围的确定上,一直存在争议的是权利要求中的方法特征对保护范围的限定有何影响和作用。我国在专利授权阶段和专利侵权阶段对这一类权利要求保护范围的认定并不一致。专利局将“方法限定产品权利要求”解释为方法特征能否给产品带来新颖性取决于该方法是否能够给产品本身的结构和/或组成带来不同,而不是取决于其工艺步骤本身是否区别于现有技术,这种解释方法称为产品限定法。人民法院认为“方法限定产品权利要求”的保护范围应当由权利要求记载的全部技术特征来决定,方法特征构成了对产品的限定,这种解释方法称为全部限定法。从历年审查指南的规定可以看出,专利局一直采用产品限定法,这也与其他国家专利局的做法一致。而人民法院确立的全部技术特征原则也是为了纠正过去非全部技术特征原则(即多余指定原则)的错误做法。虽然两个机构对同一问题的解释并不一致,但从其各自解释方式的历史发展来看,均存在一定的合理性。笔者认为,首先应当肯定的是,在专利侵权审判阶段应当坚持全部限定法,这符合专利制度的基石。至于专利局采用产品限定法解释,这是由专利局的职能属性决定的。这种不一致并不会造成现实中的困惑,也不会损害专利权人的利益。根据现有制度给予方法限定产品权利要求专利权人的保护是符合专利合同理论的。本文对方法限定产品权利要求进行了分析,提出专利局、人民法院对这类权利要求解释不一致的合理性,有助于解决专利权人和社会公众的困惑。
[Abstract]:Patent law divides claims into two categories, product claims and method claims. Generally speaking, product claims correspond to product composition, structure, and method. The subject of "defining product claims by methods" is the product, but the qualified feature of the product is the method by which the product is produced. In terms of the novelty, creative judgment and determination of the scope of protection of this kind of claims, there has always been a dispute as to how the characteristics of the methods in the claims have influence and function on the limitation of the scope of protection. The scope of this kind of claim protection is not consistent in patent licensing stage and patent infringement stage in China. The Patent Office interprets the term "method limitation product claim" as whether the method features bring novelty to the product, depending on whether the method can make a difference in the structure and / or composition of the product itself, Rather than depending on whether the process itself is different from existing technology, this interpretation is called product qualification. The people's court holds that the scope of protection of "method limited product claim" should be determined by all the technical characteristics recorded in the claim, and the method features constitute the limitation of the product, and this interpretation method is called the total limitation method. As can be seen from the provisions of the review guide over the years, the Patent Office has always adopted the product qualification law, which is in line with the practice of other patent offices in other countries. The principle of all technical characteristics established by the people's court is also to correct the wrong practice of the principle of non-total technical characteristics (i.e. the principle of superfluous designation) in the past. Although the two organizations have different interpretations of the same issue, there is a certain rationality from the historical development of their respective interpretation methods. The author thinks that the first thing we should affirm is that we should insist on the full limitation law in the stage of patent infringement trial, which accords with the cornerstone of patent system. As for the interpretation of the Patent Office using product qualification, this is determined by the functional attributes of the Patent Office. Such inconsistency does not cause real confusion and does not harm the interests of patentees. According to the existing system, the method of limiting the protection of the patentee is in accordance with the patent contract theory. This paper analyzes the method of limiting product claims, and proposes that the patent office and the people's court should explain the inconsistency of the claims, which is helpful to solve the confusion of the patentee and the public.
【学位授予单位】：华南理工大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.42

【参考文献】