Resolution

Question Q175

The role of equivalents and prosecution history in defining
the scope of patent protection

AIPPI

Considering that:

- Uniform interpretation of claims is a desirable part of patent harmonisation;

- The WIPO Standing Committee on Patents is seeking common ground for future harmonisation in substantive patent matters;

- However, these discussions at WIPO do not give hope for a common understanding
leading to a Substantive Patent Law Treaty in the near future;

- The Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the European Patent Convention in 2000
introduced language on equivalents into the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC;

- However, the delegates to the Diplomatic Conference did not agree on either a definition of equivalents or on the role of prosecution history for the determination of scope of claims.

Noting that:

In most countries the protection conferred by a patent may be broader than the literal wording of the claims (whether described as "equivalents" or by other approaches to interpretation in a "non-literal" manner) and harmonisation of the national approaches seems possible, since they point in the same direction.

Resolves:

1. Claims should be interpreted to give fair protection to the patentee while preserving reasonable certainty for third parties.

2. Protection should not be limited to the strict literal meaning of words used in the claims, nor should the claims serve only as a guideline.

3. In determining the scope of protection conferred by a patent claim, due account shall be taken of any element which is equivalent to an element specified in that claim.

4. An element shall be regarded as equivalent to an element in a claim, if, in the context of the claimed invention:

a) the element under consideration performs substantially the same function to produce
substantially the same result as the claimed element; and

b) the difference between the claimed element and the element under consideration
is not substantial according to the understanding of the claim by a person skilled
in the art at the time of the infringement.

5. Notwithstanding that an element is regarded as an equivalent, the scope of protection conferred by a patent claim shall not cover the equivalent if:

a) a person skilled in the art would at the filing date (or where applicable the priority date) have understood it, from the description, drawings and the claims, to be excluded from the scope of protection, or

b) as a result the claim covers the prior art or that which is obvious over the prior art, or

c) the patentee expressly and unambiguously excluded it from the claim during
prosecution of that patent to overcome a prior art objection.

第175题 决议参考译文

等同原则和界定专利保护范围的实施历史

AIPPI

考虑到：

　　--专利协调希望对权利要求的解释要一致；

　　--WIPO关于专利的常务委员会正谋求将来在实质性专利事务的协调方面取得共同基础；

　　--然而，这些在WIPO的这些讨论并没有对不久的将来实质性专利法条约取得共识产生希望；

　　--2000年修改欧洲专利条约的外交会议在解释欧洲专利条约议定书第69条时加入了等同物的语言；

　　--但是，外交会议的代表们既没有对等同物的定义，也没有对界定权利要求范围的实施历史的作用取得一致。

注意到：

　　在大多数国家，由专利授予的保护可能比权利要求的文字表述要宽（不管是描述成“等同物”，还是“非文字”方式其他类似的解释）。既然它们的目标一致，国家的观点协调看来是可能的。

决定：

　　1．权利要求的解释在对第三方保留合理的确定性时，应该给权利人以公正的保护。

　　2．保护不应局限于在权利要求中使用的严格的文字意思，权利要求也不应只作为准则。

　　3．在决定专利权利要求授予的保护范围时，应适当考虑与那一权利要求中描述的要素等同的任何要素。

　　4．如果要求保护的发明属于如下情况，一个要素应该看作在权利要求中的要素的等同物：

　　a). 考虑中的要素在与要求保护的要素实质性地产生同样的结果中，实质性地起到同样的作用；和

　　b). 根据在侵权的时候一个有经验的人对要求保护的要素的理解，要求保护的要素和考虑中的要素之间的区别不是实质性的。

　　5．尽管一个要素被作为一个等同物，一项专利权利的要求所授予的保护范围不应包括等同物，如果：

　　a). 一个有技术经验的人在申请的那一天（或者适用的优先权日）从描述、插图和权项方面已经明白它不在保护范围之内；

　　b). 作为结果，权利要求包含了先有技术或者明显地超过了先有技术，或

　　c). 专利权人在实施专利，克服一项在先技术障碍时明确表示和不含糊地将其从权利要求中排除。