PBP型權利要求的保護範圍的比較研究－－以日本最高裁判所的最新判決

Comparative Study of PBP Right Claim's Protection Range: Based on the Newest Decisions From the Japanese Supreme Court

日本司法實踐中，對於“PBP型”權利要求的發明專利採用了兩個不同的解釋方式。以2015年6月5日日本最高裁判所涉及藥品發明專利的判決為例，日本最高裁判所沒有支持知產裁判所對於“PBP型權利要求”在專利侵權判定時採用的“制法限定說”，仍然堅持“產品同一說”，日本特許廳對此也採取了最新對策。因此，本文以日本的最新判決為基礎，結合中國的實踐現狀進行比較研究。針對中國在審查階段與司法實踐中對解釋PBP權利要求的保護範圍上易出現的問題，建議借鑒日本的一些經驗做出進一步的完善。

In Japanese judicial practice, there are two different explanations for 'PBP' right claim on patents. Take the decision of Japanese Supreme Court on drug invention patents as an example, the Supreme Court does not support the 'process-prescribed doctrine' adopted by the Intellectual Property Court dealing with 'PBP right claim' during patent infringements, insisting on 'product-uniformity doctrine'; Japanese Patent Office has also taken new measures for this. In this case, this article is based on the newest court decisions, which is then compared to Chinese practices. On the problems China may encounter during the examination process and judicial practice on PBP right claim explanation, this article suggests that we should learn from Japanese practices and make further adjustment.