PBP型权利要求的保护范围的比较研究--以日本最高裁判所的最新判决

Comparative Study of PBP Right Claim's Protection Range:Based on the Newest Decisions From the Japanese Supreme Court

日本司法实践中,对于"PBP型"权利要求的发明专利采用了两个不同的解释方式。以2015年6月5日日本最高裁判所涉及药品发明专利的判决为例,日本最高裁判所没有支持知产裁判所对于"PBP型权利要求"在专利侵权判定时采用的"制法限定说",仍然坚持"产品同一说",日本特许厅对此也采取了最新对策。因此,本文以日本的最新判决为基础,结合中国的实践现状进行比较研究。针对中国在审查阶段与司法实践中对解释PBP权利要求的保护范围上易出现的问题,建议借鉴日本的一些经验做出进一步的完善。

In Japanese judicial practice, there are two different explanations for “PBP” right claim on patents. Take the decision of Japanese Supreme Court on drug invention patents as an example, the Supreme Court does not support the “process-prescribed doctrine” adopted by the Intellectual Property Court dealing with “PBP right claim” during patent infringements, insisting on “product-uniformity doctrine”;Japanese Patent Ofifce has also taken new measures for this. In this case, this article is based on the newest court decisions, which is then compared to Chinese practices. On the problems China may encounter during the examination process and judicial practice on PBP right claim explanation, this article suggests that we should learn from Japanese practices and make further adjustment.