日本創造性判斷的現狀及其應用可能性

Present Situation of Examination for Inventive Step in Japanese Courts and Its Application Possibility

本論考的目的之一，就是正確掌握日本法院的創造性判斷之現況。創造性之所以是困難的研究主題，其中的原因之一就是在日本，創造性就有將近300件之多的判決，但一直以來，日本學術界就只介紹幾件創造性的審判案例，而且有很多針對這幾件案例的解說論考。然而，若以光是創造性的判決，一年就存在著300件的現況為前提，就無法靠如上述般的論考手法掌握創造性判斷的全貌。本論考以2009年起至2012年止約700件審判案例為對象，以統計的手法揭明創造性判斷的現況，是日本最初的論文。本論考的概要如下：分析創造性相關審判後，可將日本的狀況分為以往型和邏輯型。即，首先認定主要引用文獻，然後不需要對本領域技術人員根據主要引用文獻經歷何種思考過程進行判斷，只要認定為現有技術就作出“因此容易想到”的結論（稱之為“以往型”）。另外，認定主要引用文獻，然後認定次要引用文獻等來組成對象發明，本稿以這種“以往型”判斷方法為前提，在此基礎上再增加一個步驟，重視申請後對從主要引用文獻出發作出對象發明的思想過程進行的假設性呈現的動機的論證是否合理，將這種創造性的判斷方法稱之為“邏輯型”。只要現有文獻中不存在“教導、啟示或者動機”（限定列舉）則不能被視為無效，美國的TSM測試在這一點上是最不容易被視為無效的。假設這是一種封閉的標準，則在未必限定為“教導、啟示和動機”這一點上，這種邏輯型是一種開放的標準，這一點與TSM測試存在差異。而本論考的結論大致歸納為以下兩點。第一，日本對創造性進行判斷的現狀是，仍然是以往型與邏輯型並存，以往型的使用依然根深蒂固。的確，在日本，與作為最容易被視為無效的標準的以往型相比，邏輯型占多數，但美國則相反，KSR判決從最不容易被視為無效的TSM測試的嚴格應用轉向TSM測試的彈性應用，在這一點上，在以往型與嚴格的TSM測試的中間地帶存在“日美雙方步調一致的潮流”，但不能忽視的是，在日本現在還存在相當數量的通過“以往型”判斷方法作出判決的案件。第二，正如前章的總結中所述，如果創造性的判斷標準有“以往型”、“邏輯型”、TSM測試三種，理論上按照該順序專利權被視為無效的比率越來越低。這可在分別使用三種不同創造性基準下，明白顯示能將國家政策細微地反映至專利制度。

One purpose of this article is to master correct1y present situation of examination for inventive step in Japanese courts. One reason why inventive step is considered as a difficult research topic is that in Japan there appears near1y 300 judgments re1ated to inventive step each year. However, acadernia in Japan just introduces on1y a small few of these cases whereas a 1ot of papers are published to discuss these small few ones. For this reason, considering the 300 judgments made every year, this kind ofthe present methodo1ogy mentioned above fai1s to get a who1e picture on examination of inventive step. For the first time in Japan, the article here studies by using a statistical approach on approximately 700 judicatory cases which are between 2009 to 2012, in order to disclose present situation of examination for inventive step. The summary is as follows: After analyzing judicatory cases in Japan re1ated to inventive step, it is found that these cases cou1d be divided as conventiona1 type and 1ogica1 type. The conventiona1 type means that: a) identify a document as primary prior art; b) then without assessment of thought process of a person skilled in the art starting from the primary prior art, as long as a claimed invention is considered as be1onging to prior arts, a conclusion of 'it is easi1y able to arrive at the invention' wi11 be made. While the logical type means that: a) identify a document as primary prior art; b) then identify a document as secondary prior art etc. and apply them to primary prior art to try forming the claimed invention; c) based on the conventional type approach, an additional step is included here paying attention to determine whether it is possible to reason that there is motivation in a thought process starting from the primary prior art to arrive at the claimed invention after a filing or priority date. According to the USA TSM test, as long as there is no 'teachings, suggestion, or motivation' (limited enumeration) appearing in prior arts, it is not able to make a patent invalid. Therefore, when the TSM test is used, a patent become most difficult to be made invalid. If the TSM test is considered as a closed/rigid approach, the logical type mentioned above, different from the TSM test, is an open approach because it is not necessarily limited to 'teach, suggestion and motivation'. Two conclusions in the present article are obtained as fol1ows. First1y, the present situation of examination for inventive step in Japan is that both of the conventional type and logical type exist and using conventional type is sti11 deep-rooted. Indeed, compared with the conventional type by use of which a patent is most easily to be made invalid, the logical type is a majority in Japan. On the contrary, in the USA, due to judgment of KSR, a strict use of the TSM test leading a patent most difficult to be made invalid has turned to use TSM test in a f1exible manner. Therefore, there is a trend that Japan and the USA is approaching to each other due to an existence of a middle zone between the conventional type and the rigid use of TSM test. However, there are sti11 a considerable number of cases using the approach of conventional type in Japan. Secondly, as mentioned above, if approaches for examination of inventive step are recognized as three ones in the order of conventional type, logical type and TSM test, accordingly, the invalid rate of a patent becomes theoretically lower and lower. For this reason, it becomes clear that a country selectively using one of the three approaches for examination of inventive step could transfer subtly corresponding state policy to its patent system.