概括性语言在专利审查和侵权救济程序中的解释

Construction of Generalization Wording in Patent Examination and Infringement Relief Procedure

现行审查指南和司法实践对包括功能性特征和上位概念在内的概括性语言的解释不同,产生了一些弊端。从语言的特点"、概括"的实质和方法、现行审查实践的效果、专利法的基本原理及行政和司法效率来看,无论是在专利审查阶段,还是在侵权救济阶段,对概括性语言的理解都应限于说明书和附图所公开的具体实施方式及其等同实施方式,从而与司法解释中关于功能性特征的反向等同原则一致。该原则与专利审查基准及侵权判定和抗辩原则能够相互协调与配合。本文也包括了对最新司法解释法释[2016]1号的讨论。

Generalization wording, including functionality features and genus terms, is construed differently in Guidelines for Patent Examination and in judicial practice, resulting in some deficiencies. From the characteristics of language, the nature and methodology of'generalization', the effect of the present patent examination practice, the basic principles of the patent law, and the administrative and judicial efficiency, it can be concluded that whether in patent examination or in infringement relief procedure, the generalization wording should be construed as the specific embodiments disclosed in the description and drawings and equivalents thereof, in the same manner as the Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents in the judicial interpretation regarding functionality feature. The Doctrine can cooperate and be coordinated with relevant patent examination standards and rules for patent infringement determination and defense. The latest judicial interpretation, Fa Shi [2016] No.1 is also discussed.