兩岸專利權審查的比較研究──以金融科技相關技術為例

A STUDY OF THE DIFFERENCES IN PATENT EXAMINATION CROSS-STRAITS - EXAMPLE OF FINTECH

尋求技術性競爭優勢的經濟活動中，取得專利權以排除競爭者使用自己研發成果，是保護關鍵性資產的重要手段。在兩岸科技類商品貿易量持續成長的現況下，藉由專利保護創新技術而擁有競爭優勢，是兩岸貿易良競爭的重要議題。然而，相同創新技術在兩岸申請專利所能獲得的保護範疇是否相同，過往較少討論或僅就個別案件進行比較分析。本文採用同時以相同金融相關創新技術之專利申請案件與其後續審查結果為研究樣本，有系統性的比較審查結果之差異，以推論兩岸申請專利取得權利範圍的差異。本文引用優先權制度篩選2012年至2019年之申請案為研究樣本，並交叉使用我國智慧財產局建置之全球專利檢索系統（GPSS）、中華民國專利檢索系統、歐洲專利局建置之Espacenet專利檢索系統與中國大陸國家知識產權局建置之本國專利檢索系統，以專利文件首頁資料進行研究樣本的檢索、篩選、比較，並採用人工逐篇檢視方式分析審查結果與審查理由。從整體統計數據來看，相同創新技術在兩局分別申請專利後的狀況不同：一、台灣的核准率較高；二、兩局皆核准之專利的請求項項數差不多；三、兩局皆核准狀況下，在台灣請准之請求項1限縮比例較少而權利範圍較大。據此推論，在台灣取得的專利權利範圍較大。兩局皆不予專利的申請案，兩岸專利專責單位提出的核駁理由相當一致。

In economic activities seeking technological competitive advantages, obtaining patent rights to exclude competitors from using one's own R&D results is an important means of protecting critical assets. With the continuous growth of cross-strait trade in technological commodities, it is an important issue for cross-strait trade competition to have a competitive advantage through patent protection of innovative technologies. However, whether the same innovative technology can obtain the same scope of protection when filing for patents on both sides of the Taiwan Strait is a topic that scholars have seldom discussed in the past, or they only conduct comparative analysis on case studies. T his article uses the same patent applications of fintech-related innovative technology and its subsequent examination results as a research sample, and systematically compares the differences in the examination results to infer the differences in the scope of rights obtained from patent applications across the Taiwan Strait. This study uses the priority claim to select the applications from 2012 to 2019 as research samples, and uses the first page information of said applications by searching the Global Patent Search System (GPSS) established by the Intellectual Property Office of Taiwan, Espacenet established by the European Patent Office, the domestic patent search system established by Taiwan and Mainland China to screen out appropriate samples. Manual reviewing is used at analyzing the examining outcomes and objection reasons. From the overall statistical data, the situation of the same innovative technology after filing patents in the two offices is different: first, the issued rate in Taiwan is relatively high; second, the number of claims for patents allowable by both offices is similar; third, under allowable status, claim 1 in Taiwan has fewer limited and a boarder scope of rights. It can be inferred that the scope of patent rights obtained in Taiwan is relatively large. When the two offices do not grant a patent simultaneously, the objections reasons by both offices are quite consistent.