專利侵害之均等論類型化分析

Abstract

本文試圖以類型化的方式探討均等論於我國以及美國實務下之運作，試圖尋找在這些相同類型的請求項元件中，是否在判斷均等上有相同或者類似的處理方式，例如透過法院在該些案例下論述均等論的法理、比對原則或者是比對方法的闡述，希冀能夠整理出相關脈絡，並試圖尋找出現有均等論遇到哪些困境。最後，透過案例的回顧，重新思考均等論的相關爭議問題，並進一步提出可以改善的方法或方向。

This article attempts to explore the operation of doctrine of equivalence in practice in both Taiwan and the United States by way of a typology, trying to find out if there were the same or similar approaches to determine these same types of claim elements. For example, through the courts’ discussion to articulate the legal principles, comparative principles, or comparison methods of doctrine of equivalence in these cases. The aim is to organize relevant contexts and attempt to find out the dilemmas the existing doctrine of equivalence has encountered. Finally, through the review of the cases, we rethink the controversial issues related to the doctrine of equivalence and further proposes ways or directions for improvement.