ブログ

§112条の第6パラグラフの均等と均等論の違い

2010.09.25

SKIP

§112条の第6パラグラフの均等と均等論の違い
  第6パラの均等の範囲は特許の発行時に確定されてしまって、その後に発生した技術を含まない。そのような技術は均等論で保護される。
  機能については、第6パラの均等は『同一』が要求されるが、均等論では、『実質的同一』でよい。
  要するに原則として、均等論>第6パラの均等
  だけど、補正があった場合は、均等論は禁反言で制限されるので、第6パラの均等も意味があるかも。
Al-site corporation v. VSI international, Inc. 174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
「One important difference between § 112, P 6 and the doctrine of equivalents
involves the timing of the separate analyses for an “insubstantial change.” As this
court has recently clarified, a structural equivalent under § 112 must have been
available at the time of the issuance of the claim. See Chiuminatta, 145 F.3d at 1310.
An equivalent structure or act under § 112 cannot embrace technology
developed after the issuance of the patent because the literal meaning of a claim is
fixed upon its issuance. An “after arising equivalent” infringes, if at all, under the
doctrine of equivalents. Thus, the temporal difference between patent issuance and
infringement distinguish an equivalent under § 112 from an equivalent under the
doctrine of equivalents. In other words, an equivalent structure or act under § 112
for literal infringement must have been available at the time of patent issuance while
an equivalent under the doctrine of equivalents may arise after patent issuance and
before the time of infringement. An “after-arising” technology could thus infringe
under the doctrine of equivalents without infringing literally as a § 112, P 6
equivalent. 2 Furthermore, under § 112, P 6, the accused device must perform the
identical function as recited in the claim element while the doctrine of equivalents
may be satisfied when the function performed by the accused device is only
substantially the same.」

アーカイブ