English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 81712/111165 (74%)
造訪人次 : 21228304      線上人數 : 476
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧:
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號",以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋,建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位,可獲得較完整資料
  • 進階搜尋
    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/114444


    題名: 專利法中「發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者」之法實證研究
    A Legal Empirical Study of the PHOSITA in the Patent Law
    作者: 宋皇志
    Sung, Huang-Chih
    關鍵詞: 專利;進步性;通常知識者;客觀標準;虛擬的人;實證研究;智慧財產局;智慧財產法院
    Patent;PHOSITA;Objective Standard;Hypothetical Person;Empirical Study;TIPO;IP Court
    日期: 2016-09
    上傳時間: 2017-11-07 14:54:25 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 「發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者」(下稱「通常知識者」)是專利法制中相當重要之概念,然我國法院判決中從未具體認定「通常知識者」之能力或學經歷標準,亦未曾說明審判中係如何虛擬成「通常知識者」以進行進步性之判斷,引發進步性是否淪為法官或技術審查官之主觀判斷的疑慮。本文之法實證研究區分成量化研究與質性研究二部分,結論與建議包含:研究前預設之命題全部成立:大部分「專利審理者」於審理進步性時未決定「通常知識者」之技術水準,亦未虛擬之,而是以自身為標準;專利進步性審查之建議:建構出「專利審理者」決定並將自己虛擬成「通常知識者」之標準流程;修法建議:將專利法中「通常知識者」修改成「專利所屬技術領域中具有通常技能者」;對於智慧財產局之建議:專利審查官之選任宜儘量選擇具有產業經驗者;以及對於智慧財產法院之建議:技術審查官之數量必須再增加,且最好有產業經驗。
    The PHOSITA (person having ordinary skill in the art) is an important concept in the current Patent Law. For example, PHOSITA is the objective standard for determining patent non-obviousness. Theoretically, when the patent examiners or judges (hereinafter "the Decision Makers") examine the non-obviousness of a patent, they need to determine the technology level of the PHOSITA first. However, a review of our courts' decisions shows that our courts have never identified the PHOSITA's skill/experience level. Nor have they explained how to judge the non-obviousness in the perspective of the PHOSITA during the course of the decision-making. Consequently, it raises the question of whether the Decision Makers determine the patent non-obviousness subjectively. The legal empirical study in this article includes a quantitative study and a qualitative study. A questionnaire has been used in the quantitative study to interview the attorneys at law and patent attorneys, and the conclusions showed 80% of interviewees assert that identifying the PHOSITA is a prerequisite of determining patent non-obviousness. However, only one fourth of the interviewees had such experience in the IP Court. In addition, more than one half of the interviewees think that the Decision Makers see themselves as the PHOSITA. In regard to the qualitative study, in-deep interviews have been conducted toward 20 Decision Makers and attorneys. The result confirms that most Decision Makers don't determine the PHOSITA. Rather, they see themselves as the PHOSITA when they determine the patent non-obviousness. The conclusions of the qualitative study are as follows: (1) the PHOSITA has ordinary skill in the art but with full knowledge of prior art; (2) the determination of PHOSITA should consider the technical field of the patent, the educational background and work experience of the inventor, and the technical standard of ordinary workers in the technical field; (3) the Decision Makers should lower their standards to hypothesize PHOSITA in the fields that they have technical expertise in; for the technologies they are not familiar with, the Decision Makers should enhance their standards by conducting researches or consulting experts. The overall conclusions and suggestions of this article are as follows: (1) the original presumption is confirmed-most Decision Makers don't determine the level of PHOSITA; (2) in regard to non-obviousness examination, the process of examining non-obviousness with determining the PHOSITA should be proposed; (3) in respect of law amendment, the law regarding the PHOSITA in Taiwan's Patent Law should be amended to a "person having ordinary skill in the art"; (4) for TIPO, it is recommended to recruit the patent examiners with industrial experiences; (5) as for IP Court, the numbers of technical officers in the IP Court should be expanded and it is also recommended to recruit the technical examiners with industrial experiences.
    關聯: 政大法學評論, 146, 52-126
    資料類型: article
    DOI 連結: http://dx.doi.org/10.3966/102398202016090146002
    DOI: 10.3966/102398202016090146002
    顯示於類別:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    146-2.pdf2119KbAdobe PDF93檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋