美國關於試驗免責的幾個個判例

美國關於試驗免責的幾個個判例

※The origin of the experimental use defense is linked to an opinion by Supreme Court Justice Story; in Whittemore v. Cutter24 he stated:
[I]t could never have been the intention of the legislature to punish a man who constructed such a machine merely for philosophical experiments, or for the purpose of ascertaining the sufficiency of the machine to produce its described effects.

哲學性的試驗；或為確認說明書記載效果的實施，不會構成專利侵害，見（Wittmore v. Cutter）。

※ Embrex, Inc. v. Service Engineering Corp.(2000)
In this case, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) did not allow the common law exception for an act of experiment conducted for designing around a process invention. The case clarified anew that experimental use exception is only applied to extremely limited acts in the United States.

為迴避專利的實施，不能被視為試驗例外免責行為

※ Madey v. Duke University (2002)
This case has clarified anew that common law exception is only applied in extremely limited cases.

Common law的例外原則，僅能適用於極為限定的案例。

參考資料：（一）、（二）、另對照先前的文章。

【11月9日更新】
若比對美、日對於試驗例外的想法，可以發現日本比美國更為寬鬆，美國僅能限定於“極少數”的情況，為迴避設計的實施，不能被視為試驗，“為確認是否要接受授權的試驗”也有可能會不被視為試驗，不能免責，但這些在日本的學者眼中，都應視為試驗免責的範圍內。

【2010年10月15日更新】

※ Madey v. Duke University (2002)
"regardless of whether a particular institution or entity is engaged in an endeavor for commercial gain, so long as the act is in furtherance of the alleged infringer's legitimate business and is not solely for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry, the act does not qualify for the very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense."

美國專利法沒有「試驗免責」條款，其為法院解釋出來的例外。也因為「試驗免責」是法院解釋出來的，不是立法委員立法的，所以在美國「試驗免責」的適用範圍較為嚴格。

距離原始的貼文，已經五年了，時間過的真快，什麼都變了。