可專利性分析及侵權分析
最近因為某些原因，開啟了我想整理“可專利性分析及侵權分析”之間的關聯，以下僅是初步的整理，以及我所找到的相關判決，等到讀得不較熟了之後，再重新整理一次。
自己做過的整理
http://patentdic.blogspot.com/2005/06/blog-post_18.html
http://patentdic.blogspot.com/2005/07/blog-post_19.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9609.html
一個美國專利律師自製的專利字典
That Which Infringes if Later, Anticipates if Earlier: A rule stating the equivalence between two tests under patent law (i.e., the test of infringement of a patent and the test of anticipation in the prior art to invalidate a patent). If the claim of a patent is literally infringed by a prior art reference, then the claim is anticipated by that prior art reference and, therefore, is unpatentable. Note that there cannot be anticipation of a claim by equivalents.
幾則舊判例：
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. (Fed. Cir. 1984)
SSIH Equip. S.A. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Lewmar Marine, Inc. v. Barient, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1987)
關於以侵權角度來判斷是否具新穎性，請參考以下連結：
http://patentdic.blogspot.com/2005/06/blog-post_18.html
以上連結是我於2005年6月13日所做的blog，請您們參考，其中請特別注意下面幾段文字：A century-old axiom of patent law holds that a product "which would literally infringe if later in time anticipates if earlier."
最早出現以侵權角度來判斷是否具新穎性的判例，應該是這一個：accord Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889) ("That which infringes, if later, would anticipate, if earlier.").
其他以侵權角度來判斷"雙重專利"的判例，請參考以下連結：
http://patentdic.blogspot.com/2005/07/blog-post_19.html
還有請參照附件（amendment2003.pdf），於其內第12頁，撰寫到：
The test currently used for same invention-type double patenting is "whether one of the claims being compared could be literally infringed without literally infringing the other. If it could be, the claims do not define identically the same invention." In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (C.C.P.A. 1970).
事實上，除了以侵權角度來看申請時的可專利性判斷，如新穎性及雙重專利，其他還有以“進步性”的判斷來測試是否具“均等侵權”的學說，其大意為：若疑似侵權物若相對於被侵權專利，具有可專利性（進步性）時，該疑似侵權物，就不會落入被侵權專利的“均等範圍”。
原因在於，具進步性一定要是非“insubstantial differences（or insubstantial change）”，而均等範圍具一定要是“insubstantial differences”。
請參考附件（Intellectual propert_Patent Law Course Materials.pdf），第420頁。
If the accused infringer has received a patent on the product or process accused of infringing, should that affect the doctrine of equivalents analysis?
Evidence of a patent covering the change, in my view, is clearly relevant unless the patent is invalid. A substitution in a patented invention cannot be both nonobvious and insubstantial. I would apply nonobviousness as the test for the "insubstantial change" requirement of Hilton Davis.
所以侵權分析的概念，不見得一定不同於可專利性分析。不過，我也覺得它們其實是不相同的概念，因為侵權分析一定是“製品”和“文字”間的比對；但是可專利性（新穎性）分析卻常常是“文字”和“文字”的比對，最大的不同在於文字可以有範圍，而製品則沒有。例如，文字可以用“金屬”來表示範圍，但在製品時只能用某一種金屬來製造，只有元件沒有範圍。
1893年，美國最高法院的判例
U.S. Supreme Court
KNAPP v. MORSS, 150 U.S. 221 (1893)
http://ides13.googlepages.com/1893.doc
they would constitute an infringement thereof, for the rule is well established 'that which infringes, if later, would anticipate, if earlier.'
