等同原则对功能性特征的适用——评法释[2016]1号第8条  

On the Application of the Doctrine of Equivalents on Functionality Features:Comments on Art. 8 of Judicial Explanation No.1,2016

作　　者：李春晖[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京集佳知识产权代理有限公司

出　　处：《知识产权》2016年第9期45-52,共8页Intellectual Property

摘　　要：最新司法解释法释[2016]1号第8条对功能性特征提出了定义和不同于传统等同原则的等同标准。这种对功能性特征和普通技术特征的区分在技术层面是困难的,在权利层面会导致权利要求保护范围因技术特征是否被认定为功能性特征而产生极大不同,从而推动产生一些不必要的争议,影响权利人行使权利。事实上,美国司法实践以及功能性特征与普通技术特征在权利要求中的目的、在语言学上的关联、在司法实践中的解释方式、等同原则与功能性特征的根源与目的等,均表明功能性特征应与普通技术特征一样适用传统的等同原则。即,对功能性特征等同侵权的标准,应为"以基本相同的手段,实现基本相同的功能,达到基本相同的效果"。Art. 8 of judicial explanation No. l , 2016 puts forward a definition for functionality features, lso a criteria measuring equivalence different from the current doctrine of equivalents. It is technically difficult o distinguish fimctionality features from general technical features; and the protection scope of claim may vary dramatically depending on whe＆er a technical feature is regarded as a functionality feature. The confbsion can ead to unnecessary disputes and impact on the exercise of patent rights. The US judicial practices, the roles of oth functionality features and general technical features in the claims, the lingual relationship there between, heir similar construing manner, and the origin and purpose of the doctrine of equivalents and functionality eatures are all indicating that the conventional doctrine of equivalents should equally apply to functionality eatures and general technical features. To sum it up, the equivalent infringement of fimctionality features should e measured according to the following criteria, ＂substantially the same means, functions and effects＂.

关 键 词：功能性特征 等同原则 反向等同原则 权利要求的解释 

分 类 号：D923.42[政治法律—民商法学]