眾律國際專利事務公告
提供與企業跨國法律事務協商、管理與爭議處理。全球專利商標布局、管理與維權。新創公司、投資併購與證券交易。商品及服務國際貿易合約安排。企業及民眾常用合約範本、各種民刑、行政訴訟的介紹。以供參考用之法規介紹,案例簡介、法庭觀察及法律小品文章與範例以供企業與網民參閱。本部落格的文章及其回覆,不代表本所的正式法律意見。如需進行各種商業交易的合法審查、各國商務契約的草擬談判、提起訴訟或應訊應訴、專利布局授權、商標布局授權,請諮詢您所委任的商務律師、訴訟律師、商標律師及專利師、專利代理人。如需本所正式法律意見、法律服務、專利服務、商標服務,請就近聯繫台北所02-27595585,新竹所03-6675569。E-mail:info@zoomlaw.net。本所詳細資訊請自行參閱:http://www.zoomlaw.net/files/11-1138-725.php 執行合夥律師 范國華博士敬啟

目前日期文章:201509 (11)

瀏覽方式: 標題列表 簡短摘要

IV. CONCLUSIONLessons and Learned

In Hawaii, Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS) is the most important process to ensure that the agency make right decisions to the proposal or actions triggered by HRS§ 343-5.

From the Kawailoa project, we learned that failure to (1) provide accurate and sufficient evaluation of visual impact (though it is not avoidable at some level), and (2) fully communicate in order to get the communities’ full awareness of the possible environmental impacts, and (3) provide adequate cultural impact assessment, will possibly negate the fundamental purpose as set forth in HRS§343-1, HAR §11-200-1, and cause a concern whether the accepting agency have chance to have a “hard look” at all impacts and alternatives under the procedural requirements.

In the meantime, wind turbines have been criticized for disrupting the lives of birds and bats, also humans. Noise and shadow flicker are the most common concerns, with some correlation between the most vigorous complaints and parties who do not receive economic benefit from nearby installations. That’s actually what happen in InfraVest Wind Power project located Yuanli town, Miaoli county, Taiwan as we mentioned in the introduce of this article.

Just assumed the InfraVest project generated in Hawaii, as a hypothetical new wind farm project, residences of Yuanli may consider:

(1) Hire experts[i] to prepare visual impact assessment from more different distances, angles, and neighbor areas; to aggressively make comments in each period for public comments after the published of draft of environment impact statement (DEIS) by providing those Visibility Impact Assessment (VIA) results to be qualified for taking HRS § 343-7 (C) “judicial proceeding”.

(2) Periodically monitor the governmental website to see any publication of EA/EIS information made by the Environment Counsel, in order to avoid improper segmentation and get ready to participate in any opportunity of public communication in a timely manner

(3) Take records in each step or meetings of public communication as evidence to prepare for the judicial challenge in HRS § 343-7 (b) or (c).

(4) Take cautions to ensure the new project will be well scoped without improper segmentation.

(5) In case ANY current status of turbines in Yuanli would be changed, ex, removed, added, or replaces, the residences may try to request a supplemental EIS (SEIS) to be submitted to the Environment Counsel, thus to ask removal of certain wind turbines from the current InfraVest project and reduce the visual and cultural impacts to the local scenes or to reduce the noise level to human.



[i] There are certain reputed companies involved in visual impact assessment works on wind projects, software, and methods/guideline. See

http://www.macalester.edu/windenergy/visualimpact....

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

本所合夥律師徐仕瑋於9月14日下午2時,應內政部警政署之邀,前往台北市立農街2段保安警察第一總隊,以「辦理防宣導相關著作權問題」為題,對於全台承辦相關業務之員警演講。徐律師以往在警界之演講對象通常為承辦智慧財產權犯罪之專業司法警察。內政部警政署有鑒於民眾著作權意識正覺醒中,若警察機關進行預防犯罪等宣導時,無論自製或外包宣導內容,身為執法者而竟誤觸法網,將是一大危機!為避免類此事件發生,特經由經濟部智慧財產局引薦,邀請徐律師講授相關問題與解決之道。徐律師從律師觀點,為員警分析各式取得著作之方式及風險評估,並介紹創用CC授權之概念及相關著作之搜尋方式,期能使警務機關在獲得授權之下,充分享受著作與文化普及之利,而不蒙受其弊。

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

本署合夥律師徐仕瑋應臉書律師社團「律師甘苦談(口水)社」邀請,於9月3日晚間在台北市承德路一段衍義國際法律事務所,以「網路侵權蒐證」發表演講,並利用瀏覽器的發展者工具(Developer Tools)及擴充套件(extensions)等當場示範各式簡易的蒐證方式。此為徐律師第四次受邀對該律師社團發表演講,之前演講主題包括數位鑑識、臉書服務條款、公開傳輸等,預計下次將講授個資法案例。

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

本署合夥律師徐仕瑋應三重北區扶輪社邀請,於8月25日中午在台北市林森北路華泰王子大飯店,在該社第1285次例會,以著作權為主題發表演講。徐律師處理著作權案件多年,關於智慧財產權、個資法及電腦犯罪的演講近兩百場,對象包括法律專業人士及一般民眾,且致力於「法普」(法律普及),力求法治觀念能深入人心。由於民眾的著作權意識尚在覺醒中,而且網路資料唾手可得,偏偏我國著作權法列有刑責,因此觸犯著作權法的後果往往成為企業始料未及之痛。因此徐律師以十個常見的著作權案例為中心,為社員淺顯說明中小企業常見的著作權地雷,以及事前預防、事後面對的訣竅。

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

越南專利的新選擇

 

依據專利合作條約(Patent Cooperation Treaty, PCT) ,越南國家工業產權辦事處(Vietnam National Office of Industrial Property, NOIP) 有一個新變革,自201591日起正式承認將源自越南申請之國際專利申請案件,交由新加坡智慧產權辦事處(Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, IPOS)為其國際初步審查單位(International Preliminary Examining Authorities, IPEA)以及國際檢索單位(International Searching Authorities, ISA)

 

此事件將提供越南企業和個人有更多的機會使用專利合作條約體系(PCT)獲得外國市場的專利保護。據此,申請人對於國際專利合作條約(PCT)專利申請,除了在俄羅斯、瑞典、韓國、奧地利、日本和歐洲專利局(EPO)等國家智慧產權辦事處申請之外,多了一種選擇國際檢索和初步彙報的機會。新加坡智慧產權辦事處(IPOS)備有與英語同等優秀的國語檢索。此外,它將使越南專利之申請更具成本效益的保障方式。

 

關於選擇新加坡智慧產權辦事處之費用詳細資訊幾乎每周更新,請參照: HTTP://www.wipo.int/pct/en/appguide/index.jsp

 

 

根據目前有關源自國外專利申請越南專利實務,美國專利商標局(USPTO)、歐洲專利局(EPO)國際檢索和初步報告往往是審查員在專利審查過程中最優先考量之因素。不過,其他從的加拿大、日本、俄羅斯、英國、瑞典、奧地利、西班牙、澳大利亞、中國、韓國、德國和歐洲專利組織(EAPO)等專利局的國際檢索和初步報告也都有助於審議。

 

在專利合作條約(PCT)制度下,建議外國專利在越南申請時選擇上述主管當局,不僅可以增加獲得專利保護可能性,尚且可以減省專利審查時間。

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()


越南專利的新選擇 

 

依據專利合作條約(Patent Cooperation Treaty, PCT) ,越南國家工業產權辦事處(Vietnam National Office of Industrial Property, NOIP) 有一個新變革,自201591日起正式承認將源自越南申請之國際專利申請案件,交由新加坡智慧產權辦事處(Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, IPOS)為其國際初步審查單位(International Preliminary Examining Authorities, IPEA)以及國際檢索單位(International Searching Authorities, ISA)

 

此事件將提供越南企業和個人有更多的機會使用專利合作條約體系(PCT)獲得外國市場的專利保護。據此,申請人對於國際專利合作條約(PCT)專利申請,除了在俄羅斯、瑞典、韓國、奧地利、日本和歐洲專利局(EPO)等國家智慧產權辦事處申請之外,多了一種選擇國際檢索和初步彙報的機會。新加坡智慧產權辦事處(IPOS)備有與英語同等優秀的國語檢索。此外,它將使越南專利之申請更具成本效益的保障方式。

 

關於選擇新加坡智慧產權辦事處之費用詳細資訊幾乎每周更新,請參照: HTTP://www.wipo.int/pct/en/appguide/index.jsp

 

 

根據目前有關源自國外專利申請越南專利實務,美國專利商標局(USPTO)、歐洲專利局(EPO)國際檢索和初步報告往往是審查員在專利審查過程中最優先考量之因素。不過,其他從的加拿大、日本、俄羅斯、英國、瑞典、奧地利、西班牙、澳大利亞、中國、韓國、德國和歐洲專利組織(EAPO)等專利局的國際檢索和初步報告也都有助於審議。

 

在專利合作條約(PCT)制度下,建議外國專利在越南申請時選擇上述主管當局,不僅可以增加獲得專利保護可能性,尚且可以減省專利審查時間。


文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

Taiwan Trademark 101 Series, the Protection of Well-known Trademarks.

Written by: James Y. Chang

  Attorney-at-Law

1. Preamble

If a trademark didn’t file for registration in Taiwan, it still can be protected by the well-known trademark right from both national laws and international conventions.

 

2. Regulations

Taiwan is a member of WTO. According to the Article 2 of WTO TRIPS agreement, members shall comply with Articles 6[1] of the Paris Convention (1967) which rules that no application shall be filed for registration of a trademark that is identical or similar to another person’s well-known trademark or mark that it is likely to cause public confusion.

Even though Taiwan is not a membership of WIPO, she follows the well-known mark agreement[2]of WIPO to protect them from either the use of that mark is likely to impair or dilute in an unfair manner the distinctive character of the well-known mark or the use of that mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character of the well-known mark[3]. The Trademark Act[4] of Taiwan recognizes two types of well-known trademark dilution, namely likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness of well-known trademarks and likelihood of dilution of the reputation of well-known trademarks, which protection is as well as the rules of WIPO.

 

3. Factors to Be Considered When Determining Well-known Trademarks

The determination of well-known trademarks should be made on a case-by-case basis and by taking into consideration. According to the Examination Guidelines for the Protection of Well-known Trademarks[5], the following factors shall be considered as a whole:

(1)   The strength of the distinctiveness of the trademark.

(2) The extent to which the relevant enterprises or consumers know or recognize the trademark.

(3)    The duration, scope, and geographical area of use of the trademark.

(4)   The duration, scope, and geographical area of promotion of the trademark.

(5) Whether the trademark has applied for registration or the trademark has been registered, and its term, scope, and geographic area that are registered or being registered.

(6)   Any record of successful enforcement of trademark rights, especially the fact that the trademark has been recognized as a well-known one by an administrative or judicial authority.

(7)    The value of the trademark.

(8)   Other factors that could be considered in determining whether a trademark is well-known.

The above factors for judging whether a trademark is well-known are only examples. They may not be all necessarily taken into consideration in one case; only those that are relevant enough to determine whether the trademark is well-known should be considered, depending on the circumstances of the case.



[1] Article 6bis: [Marks: Well–Known Marks]

(1) The countries of the Union undertake, ex officio if their legislation so permits, or at the request of an interested party, to refuse or to cancel the registration, and to prohibit the use, of a trademark which constitutes a reproduction, an imitation, or a translation, liable to create confusion, of a mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use to be well known in that country as being already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of this Convention and used for identical or similar goods. These provisions shall also apply when the essential part of the mark constitutes a reproduction of any such well–known mark or an imitation liable to create confusion therewith.

(2) A period of at least five years from the date of registration shall be allowed for requesting the cancellation of such a mark. The countries of the Union may provide for a period within which the prohibition of use must be requested.

(3) No time limit shall be fixed for requesting the cancellation or the prohibition of the use of marks registered or used in bad faith.

[2] Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks at the Thirty-Fourth Series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO September 20 to 29, 1999

[3] Ibid. Article 4 (1)

(b) Irrespective of the goods and/or services for which a mark is used, is the subject of an application for registration, or is registered, that mark shall be deemed to be in conflict with a well-known mark where the mark, or an essential part thereof, constitutes a reproduction, an imitation, a translation, or a transliteration of the well-known mark, and where at least one of the following conditions is fulfilled:

(i) the use of that mark would indicate a connection between the goods and/or services for which the mark is used, is the subject of an application for registration, or is registered, and the owner of the well-known mark, and would be likely to damage his interests;

(ii) the use of that mark is likely to impair or dilute in an unfair manner the distinctive character of the well-known mark;

(iii) the use of that mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character of the well-known mark.

[4] Trademark Act Article 30: grounds for refusal of registration

(11) being identical with or similar to another person’s well-known trademark or mark, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on the relevant public or a likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark or mark, unless the proprietor of the said well-known trademark or mark consents to the application;

[5] Examination Guidelines for the Protection of Well-known Trademarks under Subparagraph 11 of Paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Trademark Act. Enacted and promulgated on November 9, 2007 by the order of the MOEA. Amended and promulgated on April 20, 2012 by the order of the MOEA, enforced on July 1, 2012.

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

Kawailoa wind turbines    

PART III. THE CHALLENGES ON COMPLIANCE WITH HAWAII EIS PROCESS

Although there was no judicial proceeding(HRA §343-7) imposed on the Kawailoa Wind Farm, this project it stillexhibited substantive and procedural deficiencies. Substantively, the Visual Impact (VI) was not properly addressed in the DEIS or FEIS report; and public participation was possibly inadequate to meet the EISpurpose as set forth in HRS §343-1, either. Procedurally, a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) was not included in the EIS process. We may have a quick look of those deficiencies in this section, then consider certain lessons learned in conclusion.

(1)   Visual impacts of the wind turbines.

The local citizengroups, NGOs, and individual residents continually concerned about the visual impacts of the wind turbines caused by Kawailoa project. The criticisms including:

(a) whether the red flashing FederalAviation Administration (FAA) lights mounted on the wind turbines have been discussed;[i]

(b) the DEIS did not adequately address how the facilities will be situated in appropriate locations to minimize their visual impact;

(c) what techniques will be used to blend the facilities and equipment into the natural environment;[ii]and

(d) lack of sufficient simulations at observation points along Kamehameha Highway.[iii]

 

In certain informal public hearings, a representative of neighborhood (Waimea Valley) expressed his concern that the photo samples attached to the DEIS or FEIS report were taken from a distance, making the windmills appear smaller than real scene. Many residents considered those photos to be misrepresentative of the actual resulting visual impact.[iv] Kawailoa Wind replied, The approach taken is consistent with design guidelines and best practices that have been developed and implemented for other wind development projects worldwidethere are no additional measures that could reasonably be implemented to further reduce the potential visual impacts; given the large scale of wind turbines, a certain degree of impacts is unavoidable.[v] Here, the question to such response is: whether the analysis of visual impact on the FEIS adequate to have the agency make a sound decision?

 

One of the major purpose of HRS § 343 is to establish a system of environmental review which will ensure that environmental concerns are given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations.[vi] In Hawaii, although the EIS regulation requires the environmental impact statement containsan explanation of the environmental consequences of the proposed action; fully declare the environmental implications of the proposed action; discuss all relevant and feasible consequences of the action, and include responsible opposing views on significant environmental issues raised by the proposal.[vii]The HRS §343 and HAR §11-200 does not require a FEIS to provide all possible alternatives or details of mitigations reducing the visual impact. A possible reason is that the VI may be highly relative and subjective, which may be conceived variously--positive or negative--from different people, angle, locations, and distances. Therefore, the HRS § 343 only required the agencies to take a hard lookat the information and give it serious consideration,[viii]instead of asking a completed mitigation.

 

In Laguna Greenbelt Inc v. U.S. Dept. of Trans.,[ix](community organization brought action to challenge the decision of Federal Highway Administration (FHA) approving a development in public land), the 9th Circuit Appeal Court ruled that, even though certain information was not disclosed in the FEIS and violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)s process, the court will not challenge the agencys decision in case the decision-maker was fully informed of the environmental consequences. The failure of the EIS to disclose accurately the impacts does not constitute reversible error to the agencys decision.[x] Meanwhile, the Laguna court ruled that NEPA does not require a fully developed plan that will mitigate all environmental harm; NEPA requires only that mitigation be discussed in sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been fully evaluated.[xi]

Because the HRS §343 and case law of relevant jurisdiction only required the proposal owner to disclose consequencesto allow the agencies have a hard look, and theEIS report of Kawailoa Wind project had illustrated existing conditions and potential consequencesof the establishment of wind turbines by photos, one might say the agencies lacked sufficient consideration, but not easy to say that the assessment of VI violated the EIS process. 

 

(2)   The Public participation would possibly be inadequate

Public participation is required under HRS§343-1, which states in part, the legislature further finds that the process of reviewing environmental effects is desirable because environmental consciousness is enhanced, cooperation and coordination are encouraged, and public participation during the review process benefits all parties involved and society as a whole.[xii] The Hawaii courts consistently express that, when citizenslack of participation has harmed the public interest role that the legislature built into the environmental review process.[xiii]

The problem is that, although HRS §343-2 states that the applicant shall file documentsfor public review, and the documents must incorporate the publics comments under EIS process, there is no legal requirement for mandate public meetings or outreach. If the public hearing, and formal/informal consulting with local groups, residences, and relevant authorities had been conducted, but the local public groups lacked sufficient information or full awareness of the resulting impacts of the Project,[xiv]whether the local community may argue of the EIS process of HRS §343-2 and HAR §11-200-14 had been violated?

This articles opinion is that the local communities may argue that they cannot prepare comprehensive comments, concreted arguments, or constructive suggestions pertaining to the Kawailoa project if there were no sufficient public dialogs and outreach efforts, because the local communities may not easily access, read, or understand the necessary information from the hundreds pages of DEIS/FEIS. Such constraints should have defeated the purpose of HEPA/NEPA which encourages public participation.[xv]

 

(3)   A detailed Cultural Impact Assessment ( CIA ) may be required:

Waimea Valley is an important place in Hawaiian religion and culture, and includes several historical structures including stone terraces and walls constructed during the time of the Hawaiian monarchy. The Waimea Valley and neighboring land was a place of sacrifice. "It was a visual testimony that this area was sacred and important and more special than the other places".[xvi] Waimea Valley is also the largest ahupua'a (land division running from the mountains to the sea) of Oahu. Burial grounds and shrines are still located in the valley[xvii] to certify the cultural significance of Waimea valley about the ancient Hawaii, and to maintain the indignity of the current and future generation of Hawaiians. The windmills are on the top location of valley-- that may be a desecration to the sacredvalley.

However, there was no specific cultural impact assessment (CIS) cite to the law made by the FEIS regarding Waimea Valley. In the response to a comment letter made by University of Hawaii, the Kawailoa Wind claimed that a cultural impact assessment is not currently defined in statute or rule.[xviii] The Act 50, passed by the House of Representatives in 2000, required state agencies and other developers to access the effects of proposed land use or shoreline developments on the cultural practices of the community and Stateas part of the HRS 343-2,[xix] which requires cultural practices of the community and the Stateto be disclosed in the EIS, and defines such cultural practiceas an element for the agency to consider Significant effect.[xx] However, there is no relevant amendment in the Hawaii regulation (HAR Chapter 200) to regulate the CIA as a content of an EIS. Even though such disconnection existed between the State statute and regulation, the Environment Council drafted and adopted Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts[xxi] which is a persuasive guide line for the applicant of EIS to prepare CIA.

In the FEIS of Kawailoa Wind project, only a one-page letter inserted into the FEIS addressed some potential tasks and investigations of cultural impact in the future. But such letter included nothing of specific step to consult or to evaluate alternatives and mitigation of cultural impacts. This omission of detailed CIA could constitute non-compliance with the HRS § 343-2 and OEQC recommended process,[xxii] although may not violate the EIS process as defined in the Hawaii EIS regulation (HAR §11-200).



[i] Gregory Erdmann, “Comment letter regarding red flashing lights”, Comments for the EISPN, December 20, 2010.

 

[ii] David Tanoue, “Comment letter to CH2M Hill Inc.” Department of Planning and Permitting, City and County of Honolulu, Apr 8, 2011. No. 24 of Comments Received on Draft EIS for the Kawailoa Wind Farm Project, Appendix F of the FEIS.

[iii] Id.  

[iv] Interview with Mr. Bill Quinlan, a member of North Shore Neighborhood Board meeting, Nov 16, 2014. He said, the representative of First Wind LLC did not showed the sample photos to the North Shore Neighborhood Board meeting.    

[v] “Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures”, Table ES-1 of FEIS, p. ES-7.

[vi] HRS §343-1

[vii]HAR § 11-200-16

[viii] Denies E. Antolini, “The Moon Court’s Environmental Review Jurisprudence: Throwing Open the Courthouse Doors to Beneficial Public Participation”, University of Hawaii Law Review, volume 33 / Number 2 (Summer 2011), p.584. (hereinafter the “Moon Court”)

[ix]Laguna Greenbelt Inc v. U.S. Dept. of Tranp., 42 F 3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994)

[x] Id. at 527

[xi] Id. at 528

[xii] Id. Denies E. Antolini, Moon Court, p.618.

[xiii] Id. Denies E. Antolini, Moon Court, p.588.

[xiv]Carol Philips, member of the North Shore Neighborhood Board, said …although First Wind and Kamehameha Schools were available at meetings and to answer any questions, many were simply unclear on just how the view plains would be affected. Nobody got it, until they went up, and then everyone was blown away." See. Lauren Shanahan, “From Sacred to Savior?” ESPN news, Dec 12, 2012, http://xgames.espn.go.com/surfing/article/8739422/wind-power-comes-waimea-bay

[xv]HRS § 343-1.

[xvi] Tony Heff, “From Sacred to Savior?” ESPN news, Dec 12, 2012, (http://xgames.espn.go.com/surfing/article/8739422/wind-power-comes-waimea-bay)

[xvii] Id.

[xviii] See. Appendix F of FEIS.

[xix] Della Au Belatti “Act 50: the protections, pitfalls, and possibilities of the new cultural assessment requirement for Hawaii diverse communities”, Hawaii Environmental Law Program Paper Series, Spring 2004, p3.

[xx] HRS §343-2, definition of “Environmental impact statement” and “Significant effect”.

[xxi] Exhibit 1-1 “Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts”, OEQC Guide.  

[xxii] See. Guide to the Implementation and Practice of Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, 2012 Edition, Office of Environmental Quality Control, p.11-13.  

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

目前歐洲專利公約(European Patent Convention,下稱EPC)之中,關於專利申請案不符合單一性規定的相關程序,主要是定義於歐洲專利公約施行細則(Implementing Regulations to the Convention,下稱Rule)第62a條以及第64條的規定當中。

根據Rule第62a條[1](2010/4/1生效)規定:

「若歐洲專利局認為專利申請案之請求項不符合Rule第43條第2項的規定,應通知申請人限期兩個月內指定所欲進行檢索的、並能夠符合Rule第43條第2項規定的請求項。若申請人未能於限期內作出指定,則當局只會針對每一個專利範疇(category)的第1個請求項進行檢索。

(當局的)審查部門應通知申請人限制(將接受審查的、)經過檢索的專利標的(subject matter),除非(審查部門認為)基於本條第1項所發出的官方通知理由不成立。」

而上述的Rule第43條第2項[2]規定如下:

「在不違反本法第82條規定的前提下,一件歐洲專利申請案之專利標的若能符合下述規定,則在同一個專利範疇(指產品、製程、裝置或使用方法)之中,其獨立項項數允許超過1項:

(a) 為互相關連的產品;

(b) 為產品或是裝置的不同使用方式;或是

(c) 為一特定問題的不同解決方法,且該些不同解決方法並不適於合併在同一個請求項之中。」

上述的本法(EPC)第82條[3]規定如下:

「歐洲專利申請案應為單一發明,或是一組具有相同發明概念之發明群組。」

根據Rule第64條[4](2010/4/1生效)規定:

「若歐洲專利局認為專利申請案並不符合單一性的要求,則應發出部份檢索報告,其中該部份檢索報告係根據請求項中首先被提及的、關於該發明或是符合本法第82條規定的發明群組進行檢索。並且應通知當事人,欲對申請案中的其他發明進行檢索,必須於限時兩個月內,就每一欲檢索的發明各別繳交檢索規費。其後當局將發出已繳交檢索規費之其他發明之檢索報告。

在歐洲專利申請案的審查程序中,若申請人針對本條第1項中所述之任一檢索規費請求退費,並且審查部門認為本條第1項中所述關於不符合單一性的官方理由不合理時,官方應同意退費。」

綜合上述法條規定,以及實務上的程序操作,歐洲專利申請案關於單一性的審查程序如下:

1. 當檢索部門進行檢索時,發現請求項內容不符合Rule第43條第2項或EPC第82條規定的單一性要求時,即根據Rule第62a條或第64條發出通知,說明請求項內容不符合單一性、且各發明群組所包含的請求項為何,並詢問申請人是否欲進一步取得其他發明群組的檢索報告,並限期2個月內繳納相對應的額外檢索規費。

2. 申請人於上述限期內繳納額外檢索規費,並回覆檢索部門所欲取得檢索報告的其他發明群組為何。

3. 申請人可以於後續提交檢索報告答辯書時,一併說明請求項內容符合單一性的理由,並要求退還額外檢索規費。

4. 當審查部門進行審查時,將審查申請人所提出請求項內容符合單一性的理由是否合理;若屬合理,則回應申請人並退還額外檢索規費;若認為不合理,則維持原來不符合單一性的決定,並通知申請人應選擇一組已經取得檢索報告的發明群組,作為續行審查的依據。

[1] http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/r62a.html

[2] http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/r43.html

[3]http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar82.html 

[4] http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/r64.html

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

新加坡專利法於2014年2月14日公佈的輔助審查(supplementary examination)程序,將於2017年取消,確切取消日期未定。凡新加坡專利申請案於上述確切取消日期之後方取得申請日者,將不允許提出輔助審查程序。然若是經由PCT進入新加坡之國際申請案,其國際申請日早於上述確切取消日期者,仍得提出輔助審查之申請,方法是在提出實質審查時,一併提交其他特定國家對應專利申請案、或是其國際專利申請案之官方最終檢索/審查結果。

輔助審查程序係指當新加坡專利申請案在其他特定國家中另有對應的專利申請案並且已有官方最終檢索/審查結果時,可以提交給新加坡專利局作為加速審查的依據。

目前提出輔助審查,並不需要繳交官方規費,但自2017年1月1月日起,提交輔助審查將須繳交官方規費,規費金額每年進行調整。

另外,新加坡專利法中“法定不予專利之事項”相關規定,將被重新審視並修訂,時程未知。

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

林夏陞 實習律師

 
 

學歷:
國立台北大學法律學系學士

國立台北大學法律學系財經法組碩士研究

經歷:
國科會計畫結構體以外之工作與非重大修繕適用承攬人抵押權之探討」、「優先購買權之研究」研究助理

台北大學財經法研究中心助理

專業資格:
律師考試及格

專長:
民事及刑事訴訟

家事及少年案件

公司法

證券交易法


語言:
國語,英語,台語

 

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

您尚未登入,將以訪客身份留言。亦可以上方服務帳號登入留言

請輸入暱稱 ( 最多顯示 6 個中文字元 )

請輸入標題 ( 最多顯示 9 個中文字元 )

請輸入內容 ( 最多 140 個中文字元 )

請輸入左方認證碼:

看不懂,換張圖

請輸入驗證碼