逆均等論（The Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents）

逆均等論（The Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents）

逆均等論，一般說法源起於U.S. Supreme Court於1950年Graver Tank v. Linde對均等論的判決，其指出均等論也可用於對抗專利權人，

In its 1950 decision of Graver Tank v. Linde, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that the doctrine of equivalents may also act against the interest of the patentee.8 When an accused product or proce ss is literally covered by the words of a patent claim, but is “so far changed in principle” that it performs in a “substantially different way,” the court may reach a finding of noninfringement.

但事實上，其起源應該可以推至1898年之更早的Boyden Power Brake Co. v. Westinghouse判決。

The doctrine received its genesis in Boyden Power Brake Co. v. Westinghouse, 170 U.S. 537 (1898), where the Court stated:

The patentee may bring the defendant within the letter of his claims, but if the latter has so far changed the principle of the device that the claims of the patent, literally construed, have ceased to represent his actual invention, he is as little subject to be adjudged an infringer as one who has violated the letter of a statute has to be convicted, when he has done nothing in conflict with its spirit and intent.

逆均等論在實務上，很少被利用“逆均等論”來判決不侵權，原因在於：

1、被告若依逆均等論主張不侵權時，代表已承認自己的產品已落於“文義侵權”。因此，被告只有在情非得以的情況下，主張“逆均等論”才對自己有利。

2、待鑑定對象己符合「文義讀取」，但實質上未利用發明(或新型)說明所揭示之技術手段時，適用「逆均等論」。但是，當專利的權利範圍，包含“實質上未利用發明(或新型)說明所揭示之技術手段”時，是否亦代表該權利範圍應為無效，因為其已“locking enablement”及“ writtten description”。

Even with this explanation, the reverse doctrine may seem anamolous, for if the claims measure
the invention, how can the claims cease to represent the actual invention? It seems that the proper resolution of a case in which the claims exceed the scope of the disclosed invention is to
hold the claims invalid as lacking enablement or a written description.

原本應無效的專利權範圍，讓它繼續有效，而僅依逆均等論，來限縮並排除不適當的範圍，我覺得是一種施捨或說是一種折衷的方法，因為逆均等論至少給了專利權人半個麵包而不是“沒得吃”。

The Federal Circuit discussed the rationale for the reverse doctrine as follows:

The reverse doctrine of equivalents is invoked when claims are written more broadly than the
disclosure warrants. The purpose of restricting the scope of such claims is not only to avoid a holding of infringement when a court deems it appropriate, but often is to preserve the validity of claims with respect to their original intended scope.

Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 846 F.2d 1369, 1372, 6 USPQ2d
1886 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (denial of rehearing). Thus, perhaps the reverse doctrine actually helps the patentee, in that it gives the patentee half-a-loaf rather than no loaf at all.

當然，它的存在也不是完全沒有道理的，它可以適用在極為不平常的案例，在迅速發展的高科技領域，產生具大的進步時，是可以給領先者超過他們貢獻的權利範圍（？應該給予超過的範圍嗎？）。只是，到目前為止，Federal Circuit還沒有遇到這樣的領域。

The reverse doctrine of equivalents was instead intended to apply to extraordinary cases. It provides courts with something of an escape hatch, useful when a finding of literal infringement would work an unwarranted extension of the claims. The reverse doctrine might pertain to rapidly progressing fields of high technology, where radical subsequent advances allow predecessor patents to appropriate subject matter entirely beyond the scope of their technical contribution. Such circumstances appear so uncommon that, in its two decades of existence, the Federal Circuit has yet to encounter them.

2002年於“ Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc.”說的更清楚明白，「於CAFC判例，適合逆均等論判決不侵權的判決個數為零」。逆均等論僅不過是“過時的例外”。

In Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc., the Federal Circuit made abundantly clear that the reverse doctrine of equivalents was of extremely limited applicability. Judge Gajarsa observed that: “Not once has this court affirmed a decision finding noninfringement based on the reverse doctrine of equivalents.” Describing the doctrine an “an
anachronistic exception,” the court refused to apply or extend the reverse doctrine of equivalents.

3、應“正確的解釋申請專利範圍”。

小弟曾於某篇文章中看到地院依逆均等論判決不侵權，但卻被CAFC法官reverse，其認為地院的權利範圍解釋錯誤，應加入“其他限制條件”，只是忘了該文章出處，也忘了該判例名稱，有點可惜，目前正在尋找當中。不過，在此介紹一個“判例”，Multiform v. Medzam (Fed. Cir 1998)，有一點點相關：

Claim 1: A packet for absorbing and immobilizing a liquid comprising an envelope which is degradable in said liquid...

Specification:"...starch paper which is degradable in water and other liquids...dissolve..."

於此案例中，權利範圍使用“degradable”但於說明書中卻使用“dissolve”，雖然被告其製品已落入“degradable”的文義範圍，但是法官沒有依逆均等論進行判決，而認為要解釋一技術用語，最好的來源為說明書及申請專利過程檔案，而將“degradable”解釋成“dissolve”，限縮了不合理的權利範圍。

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/PDF/2004DLTR0010.pdf
In other words, properly construed claims of a traditional product should be specific enough that it should not read on the nanoproduct in the first instance.


其他..

1、於”summary judgment”，是不可適用逆均等論，因為其為“事實問題”而非“法律問題”。

The closest the court came was the in banc decision in SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107, 227 USPQ 577 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc), which, in a 6-5 vote, reversed a summary judgment of noninfringement based on the reverse doctrine of equivalents, finding issues of fact and remanding for trial on the issue.

2、適用方式：
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/reverse-doctrine-of-equivalents.html
How Does the Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents Work?
In determining whether or not to use the reverse doctrine of equivalents, a court will consider several factors:
What is the actual scope of the patent? Does it cover the new invention?
If so, should that patent extend to the new invention? This is the major issue that the reverse doctrine of equivalents must address. What is the fair scope of the patent?
Has the new invention sufficiently transformed the original invention such that it should fall outside the scope of the patent of the original invention?





參考文章如下：
一、 日本網站找到的文章：「An Analysis of Trends in the Construction of U.S. Patent Claims: 1997-2002」第24頁
http://www.iip.or.jp/summary/pdf/thomas.PDF
二、專利侵害鑑定要點草案
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/attachment/tempUpload/81786957/專利侵害鑑定要點草案.doc
三、Intellectual propert_Patent Law Course Materials.pdf
Professor Wagner
連結：一整本電子書
四、自己整理過的blog。
http://patentdic.blogspot.com/2006/02/claimcafc.html
五、PROTECTING THE NEXT SMALL THING: NANOTECHNOLOGY AND THE REVERSE
DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS
此篇奈米領域的專利工程師可以讀一讀。權利要求用“微小”時，某一段範圍的數值，會不會被依“逆均等論”不侵害？