臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

均等論，一個賦予法院將專利保護範圍擴及非專利請求項文義範圍的普通法下產物，儘管經歷了近二個世紀的演變與發展，仍可稱為是專利法上最受爭議的原則之一。
不可否認的是，當均等論被過度擴張適用時，將會與法律要求請求項所具的定義功能及公示作用產生衝突。為了避免這樣的衝突，法院在適用均等論侵權與否時，選擇採逐個別要件或技術特徵觀察而非將發明視為一整體觀察。然而，近來最高法院與智慧財產法院之間似乎就此議題有所衝突。在其中最受爭議的「多功能眼罩案」中，儘管智慧財產法院維持其一貫的「逐要件比對」的判斷方式，最高法院卻明確表達均等論的適用應採「整體觀察」判斷的立場。此二判斷方式究竟是相互衝突還是和諧的？這其實就是應採用全要件原則與否的爭議。
儘管均等論廣為已開發的專利法制系統所承認，其判斷標準與適用方式仍飽受爭議。本文主要以美國法與德國法作為比較之立法例。為平衡專利權人與公眾間的利益衝突，不同的立法例對於非文義侵權之專利權人有不同的保護方式。各國對於均等論的適用表面上看似不同，但經過進一步的比較分析後，會發現其極為類似。本文試圖透過比較法的方式，從公平且適切保護專利權的角度出發，提出對均等論適用的最適方式。
本文架構的第二部分為檢視美國、德國與台灣的專利保護範圍基本法律框架；第三部分則是檢視美國與德國的均等侵權理論適用狀況，包含美國法的全要件原則；第四部分試圖透過奠基於專利制度功能目的來釐清均等論的立論基礎，進而提出對台灣最妥適的均等論適用方式；最後則以結論作為結束。

The Doctrine of Equivalents (DOE), a common law creation that allows a court to expand patent scope beyond the rights literally claimed in the patent, might be the most controversial doctrine in patent law despite nearly two hundred years of development.
There is without doubt that the DOE, when applied broadly, conflicts with the definitional and public notice function of the statutory claiming requirement. To avoid this conflict, the court adopted the rule that the DOE must be applied to individual claim elements rather than to the invention as a whole. Recent decisions from the Intellectual Property Court (IP court) and the Supreme Court, however, appear to be in conflict. In one of the most controversial court cases concerning an eye massage device, despite the IP Court has continued to use the "element by element" approach, the Supreme Court clearly stated that the Doctrine of Equivalents should be applied on an "as a whole" basis. Are these two equivalency tests in conflict or in harmony with each other? The issue is about whether we should apply the All Elements Rule or not.
Although the need for the DOE is recognized in developed patent systems, the parameters of the doctrine and its appropriate application are still widely debated. This article will compare and contrast the doctrines applied in the U.S. and Germany. Each of these jurisdictions balances the interests between the patentee and the public differently, and each protects the patentee from non-literal infringement in a slightly distinct manner. Facially, each jurisdiction''s implementation of the doctrine of equivalents appears distinct, but closer comparative analysis reveals striking similarities between the application of these doctrines. This Article based on the fair and adequate protection of patent, tries to suggest an optimal legal model for application of the DOE, through the comparative approach.
Part II of the article reviews the legal frameworks for determining the protection scope of the patent in the U.S, German and Taiwan. Part III of the article examines the DOE used in the U.S. and Germany including the applications of the All Elements Rule in the U.S. Part IV of the article tries to provide an adequate model for application of the DOE in Taiwan, through clarifying the policy behind the DOE with the patent policy and theory. The Article finishes with a brief conclusion.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究範圍 3
第三節 研究方法 4
第四節 研究架構 5
第二章 各國法制有關專利保護範圍之判斷 7
第一節 美國法上之專利保護範圍判斷 7
第二節 德國法上之專利保護範圍判斷 19
第三節 我國法上之專利保護範圍判斷 27
第三章 外國法制上均等論適用之釐清 37
第一節 美國法上均等論與全要件原則之釐清 37
第二節 德國法相當性理論判斷的晚近發展 66
第四章 從釐清均等論與全要件限制重新建構專利保護範圍 81
第一節 我國法上均等侵權與全要件原則之適用問題 81
第二節 從專利與均等論保護目的出發重新檢視均等論 99
第五章 結論 119
第一節 美國與德國乃殊途同歸 119
第二節 均等論之制度目的：平衡對發明人的創新誘因及對第三人的法安定性間之衝突 122
第三節 對我國專利均等法制之建議與期望 123
第四節 結語 127
參考文獻 129
壹、中文參考資料 129
貳、外文參考資料 131

壹、中文參考資料
一、書籍
馮震宇（2003）。《智慧財產權發展趨勢與重要問題研究》，初版。台北：元照。
劉孔中、Heinz Goddar、Christian Appelt、蔡季芬（2013）。《歐洲專利實務指南》，一版。台北：翰蘆。
謝銘洋（2012）。《智慧財產權法》，三版。台北：元照。
顏吉承（2014）。《專利侵權分析理論及實務》。台北：五南。
二、專論
李素華、張哲倫（2014）。〈專利之制度目的及權利本質：法院在其中之關鍵角色及功能〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，232期，頁191-222。
沈宗倫（2008）。〈專利侵害均等論之過去、現在及未來：我國法應何去何從？〉，《東吳法律學報》，20卷2期，頁173-222。
沈宗倫（2013）。〈均等論與先前技術既存秩序之尊重：以先前技術阻卻為中心評最高法院一○一年度台上字第三八號民事判決及其下級法院判決〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，223期，頁225-244。
林發立（2002）。〈「均等論」行不行﹖：美國最高法院對於均等論與禁反言適用之近期見解〉，《智慧財產權》，44期，頁19-30。
耿筠、劉江彬、孫遠釗（2000）。〈美國專利法訴訟關於均等論之重要判例研究〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，13期，頁28-45。
張仁平（2006）。〈由國際專利侵害規範與實務論我國專利侵害鑑定要點之修訂與實務問題（上）〉，《智慧財產月刊》，90期，頁64-110。
張哲倫（2015）。《最高法院確立均等論分析由「特徵比對」原則改為「整體比對」原則》。載於http://www.leeandli.com/TW/Newsletters/5315.htm。
張添榜（2013）。〈以置換性判斷專利均等侵權之研究〉，《東吳法律學報》，25卷2期，頁125-163。
陳志杰、劉尚志（2004）。〈論均等論之比對方式：逐項測試法之優缺點探討〉，《科技法學評論》，1卷2期，頁397-425。
馮震宇（2002）。〈評美國最高法院Festo案：均等論雖繼續有效，但影響力逐漸受限〉，42期，頁44-46。
劉尚志、湯舒涵、張添榜、劉威克、尤謙（2015）。〈專利進步性要件之判決分析：由美國專利案例觀照台灣最高法院及最高行政法院判決〉，收於：劉尚志（主編），《台灣專利法制與判決實證》，頁301-302，台北：元照。
謝銘洋、李素華（2013）。〈專利權訴訟中之進步性與均等論：德國觀點〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，218期，頁87-126。
羅炳榮（2001）。〈均等論之末路悲歌〉，《智慧財產季刊》，36期，頁1。
三、學位論文
陳薈穎（2014）。《專利侵權鑑定的新解藥？請求項破壞原則之研究》，國立交通大學管理學院科技法律學程碩士論文（未出版），新竹。
劉筆琴（2004）。《美國專利侵害鑑定標準之研究：以均等論為主》，國立中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文（未出版），嘉義。

貳、外文參考資料
A. Books
Deller, A. W. (1971). Patent Claims (2nd ed.). New York, U.S.: The Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company.
Durham, A. L. (2013). Patent Law Essentials: A Concise Guide (4th ed.). California, U.S.: Praeger.
Fox, D. L. (2010). U.S. Patent Opinions and Evaluations. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Haedicke, M. & Timmann, H. (2013). Patent Law: A Handbook. Munich, German: Beck.
Harguth, A. & Carlson, S. (2011). Patents in Germany and Europe: Procurement, Enforcement and Defense. London, England: Kluwer Law International.
Kahrl, R. C. (2009). Patent Claim Construction. New York, U.S.: Aspen.
Leslie, C. R. (2010). Antitrust Law and Intellectual Property Rights: Cases and Materials. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Matthews, R. A. (2005). Annotated Patent Digest. Minnesota, U.S.: Thomson West.
Meier, B. P. (2004, October). The Scope of Protection Conferred by the European Patent: A German Perspective on the Doctrine of Equivalents. Presented at the AIPLA Annual Meeting, Washington DC.
Mueller, J. M. (2009). Patent Law (3rd ed.). New York, U.S.: Aspen.
Osterrieth, C. (2015). Patent Enforcement in Germany. In C. Heath (Ed.), Patent Enforcement Worldwide:Writings in Honour of Dieter Stauder (3rd ed.) (pp. 111-143). Oxford, England: Hart Publishing.
Rosenstock, J. (2012). Law of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Invention: Patent and Nonpatent Protection (4th ed.). New York, U.S.: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Schwartz, H. F. & Goldman, R. J. (2011). Patent Law and Practice (7th ed.). Virginia, U.S.: Bloomberg BNA.
Sung, L. M. (2004). Patent Infringement Remedies. Washington, U.S.: Bureau of National Affairs.
B. Periodical Materials
Allison, J. R. & Lemley, M. A. (2007). The (Unnoticed) Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents. Stanford Law Review, 59(4), 955-984.
Azure, A. H. (2001). Festo’s effect on after-arising technology and the doctrine of equivalents. Washington Law Review, 76, 1153-1184.
Bowling, A. (2013). Just About Equivalent: A Comparative Analysis of the Doctrines of Equivalents in the United States and International Jurisdictions Shows That the Varying Doctrines Are Strikingly Similar. American Intellectual Property Law Association, 41(3), 593-591.
Cordan, J. Reviving the Federal Circuit''s Dead Letter Teaching, Suggestion, or Motivation Test for the Doctrine of Equivalents. American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal, 39, 163-194.
Fromer, J. C. (2009). Claiming Intellectual Property. University of Chicago Law Review, 76(2), 719-796.
Greene, B. B. (2007). Bicon, Inc. v. Staumann Co: The Federal Circuit Specifically Excluded Claim Vitiation to Illustrate a New Limiting Principle on the Doctrine of Equivalents. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 22(1), 154-192.
Hantman, R. D. (1993). Prosecution History Estoppel. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 1993, 235-256.
Hoppe-J. D. & Vakil, B. (2014). Drospirenon and Damping Unit: Lifesaver for a German Doctrine of Equivalents or Very Old Wine in New Skins? GRUR International, 2014, 657-661.
Iancu, A. (1995). A Two-Track Approach to the Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law: Responding to Hilton Davis. Jurimetrics, 35(3), 325-347.
Katz, P. N. (1990). The Federal Circuit, in Determining Whether Patent Infringement Exists, Is Divided Over Whether to Utilize ''As-A-Whole'' or ''Element-By-Element'' Analysis When Applying the Doctrine of Equivalents. Texas Law Review, 30, 441-454.
Landry, T. K. (1994). Certainty and Discretionin Patent Law: The On Sale Bar, The Doctrine of Equivalents and Judicial Power in the Federal Circuit. Southern California Law Review, 67, 1151-1214.
Lemley, M. A. (2005). The Changing Meaning of Patent Claim Terms. Michigan Law Review, 104, 105-135.
Meier, B. P. (2012). Die Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshof zum Patent- und Gebrauchsmusterrecht im Jahr 2011. GRUR, 2012, 1177-1181.
Molinaro, F. S. (1989). Pennwalt Corp.v. Durand-Wayland Inc.: The Federal Circuit Redefines the Doctrine of Equivalents. DePaul Law Review, 38(3), 787-817.
Nelson, P. M. (2003). Definition for "Limitation" in the Context of Prosecution History Estoppel and the All Elements Rule: A Proposed Solution to the Troubling Dictum in Kustom Signals v. Applied Concepts. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2003(1), 352-384.
Petherbridge, L. (2010). On the Development of Patent Law. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 43, 893-946.
Pribish, R. (2006). Freedman Seating Co. and the Claim Vitiation Doctrine. San Diego Law Review, 43, 379-99.
Pumfrey, N. et al. (2009). The Doctrine of Equivalents in Various Patent Regimes: Does Anybody Have It Right? Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 11, 261-308.
Ralston, W. T. (2007). Foreign Equivalents of the U.S. Doctrine of Equivalents: We''re Playing in the Same Key but It''s Not Quite Harmony. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, 6(2), 177-197.
Rich, G. S. (1990). The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims: American Perspectives. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 21, 497-501.
Sarnoff, J. D. (2004). Abolishing The Doctrine of Equivalents and Claiming the Future After Festo. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 19(4), 1157-1225.
Schuster, M. (2010). Claim construction and doctrine of equivalents in the U.S. In Martina Schuster (Ed.), Patenting Proteomics: Patentability and Scope of Protection of Three-Dimensional Protein Structure Claims Under German, European and Us Law (pp.174-181). Baden-Baden, German: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Shulman, D. H. & Rupert, D. W. (2003). "Vitiating" the Doctrine of Equivalents: A New Patent Law Doctrine. Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 12, 457-570.
Wegner, H. (1992). Equitable Equivalents: Weighting the Equities to Determine Patent Infringement in Biotechnology and Other Emerging Technologies. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 18, 1-50.
Weston, Jr., R. D. (1998). A Comparative Analysis of the Doctrine of Equivalents: Can European Approaches Solve an American Dilemma? IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, 39, 35-92.
White, D. A. (2011). The Doctrine of Equivalents: Fairness and Uncertainty in an Era of Biologic Pharmaceuticals. Emory Law Journal, 60, 751-798.
Whiteside, S. G. (1996). Patents Claiming Genetically Engineering Inventions: A Few Thoughts on Obtaining Broad Property Rights. New England Law Review, 30, 1019-1070.
Wilkinson III, J. H. (2004). The Use of International Law in Judicial Decisions. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 27(2), 423-433.
C. Internet Sources
Falck, A. & Lovells, H. (2015). Patent developments in Germany. Retrieved from: https://www.expertguides.com/articles/patent-developments-in-germany/arsgfhni.
Gniadek T. & Kobler, M. (2014). Dusseldorf Appeal Court: Further guidance on the requirements of equivalent patent infringement (decision of November 7, 2013 – Case I 2 U 29/12 – WC-Sitzgelenk/ Toilet seat hinge). Retrieved from: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cf0edf27-e74e-4faf-b843-2bb76073f2ff