概括性語言在專利審查和侵權救濟程序中的解釋

Construction of Generalization Wording in Patent Examination and Infringement Relief Procedure

現行審查指南和司法實踐對包括功能性特徵和上位概念在內的概括性語言的解釋不同，產生了一些弊端。從語言的特點、“概括”的實質和方法、現行審查實踐的效果、專利法的基本原理及行政和司法效率來看，無論是在專利審查階段，還是在侵權救濟階段，對概括性語言的理解都應限於說明書和附圖所公開的具體實施方式及其等同實施方式，從而與司法解釋中關於功能性特徵的反向等同原則一致。該原則與專利審查基準及侵權判定和抗辯原則能夠相互協調與配合。本文也包括了對最新司法解釋法釋〔2016〕1號的討論。

Genera1ization wording, including functionality features and genus terms, is construed differently in Guidelines for Patent Examination and in judicial practice, resulting in some deficiencies. From the characteristics of language, the nature and methodology of 'generalization', the effect of the present patent examination practice, the basic principles of the patent law, and the administrative and judicial efficiency, it can be concluded that whether in patent examination or in infringement relief procedure, the generalization wording should be construed as the specific embodiments disclosed in the description and drawings and equivalents thereof, in the same manner as the Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents in the judicial interpretation regarding functionality feature. The Doctrine can cooperate and be coordinated with relevant patent examination standards and rules for patent infringement determination and defense. The latest judicial interpretation, Fa Shi [2016] No.l is also discussed.