知识产权新闻 温馨提示 文章 案件 链接
小议不丧失新颖性的宽限

对专利申请人、专利代理行业的从业人员来说,“新颖性”定是如雷贯耳般响当当的存在。审查员认定专利不可授权的时候,经常以“发明创造不具备新颖性”为理由。如若是被他人的在先专利、在先技术所披露还则罢了,如若是因为自己的“疏忽大意”而导致丧失新颖性,申请人就真真是满腹委屈了。

 

小编时常听到有申请人“义愤填膺”地问:“这明明是我自己的技术,怎么能用来破坏我自己呢?都是我的嘛,我还是第一个发明的啊。”每每这个时候,小编都要耐心地为申请人解释一下中国关于不丧失新颖性的公开的相关规定,进行一番安抚。

 

其实各国对于某些特定的“公开”情形都有认为不损害新颖性的相关规定,只不过表述各异,范围不尽相同。今天小编就选取中国、美国、欧洲、英国、日本这方面的规定进行解析,找找他们内在的规则和联系,看看规定的异同。

 

首先,让我们来罗列一下几个国家不同的法条规定:

 

【中国】
《中国专利法》第24条规定:申请专利的发明创造在申请日以前六个月内,有下列情形之一的,不丧失新颖性:
(一)在中国政府主办或者承认的国际展览会上首次展出的;
(二)在规定的学术会议或者技术会议上首次发表的;
(三)他人未经申请人同意而泄露其内容的。

 

【美国】
《United States Code Title 35 - Patents》第102条b款规定:
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED
INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective fling date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively fled under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective fling date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.

 

【欧洲专利共约】
《European Patent Convention》第55条规定:Non-prejudicial disclosures
(1) For the application of Article 54, a disclosure of the invention shall not be taken into consideration if it occurred no earlier than six months preceding the filing of the European patent application and if it was due to, or in consequence of:
(a) an evident abuse in relation to the applicant or his legal predecessor, or
(b) the fact that the applicant or his legal predecessor has displayed the invention at an official, or officially recognised, international exhibition falling within the terms of the Convention on international exhibitions signed at Paris on 22 November 1928 and last revised on 30 November 1972.
(2) In the case of paragraph 1(b), paragraph 1 shall apply only if the applicant states, when filing the European patent application, that the invention has been so displayed and files a supporting certificate within the time limit and under the conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulations.

 

【英国】
《英国专利法案1977》第2-(4)规定:
For the purposes of this section the disclosure of matter constituting an invention shall be disregarded in the case of a patent or an application for a patent if occurring later than the beginning of the period of six months immediately preceding the date of filing the application for the patent and either -
(a) the disclosure was due to, or made in consequence of, the matter having been obtained unlawfully or in breach of confidence by any person -
(i) from the inventor or from any other person to whom the matter was made available in confidence by the inventor or who obtained it from the inventor because he or the inventor believed that he was entitled to obtain it; or
(ii) from any other person to whom the matter was made available in confidence by any person mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) above or in this sub-paragraph or who obtained it from any person so mentioned because he or the person from whom he obtained it believed that he was entitled to obtain it;
(b) the disclosure was made in breach of confidence by any person who obtained the matter in confidence from the inventor or from any other person to whom it was made available, or who obtained it, from the inventor; or
(c) the disclosure was due to, or made in consequence of the inventor displaying the invention at an international exhibition and the applicant states, on filing the application, that the invention has been so displayed and also, within the prescribed period, files written evidence in support of the statement complying with any prescribed conditions.

 

【日本】
《日本专利法》(译文)第30条规定:丧失发明新颖性之例外
获得专利的权利的持有人通过进行试验、 在刊物上发表、 通过电信线路公布, 或者在特许厅长官指定的学术团体所举办的研讨会上以书面方式发表等行为, 导致发明落入了第二十九条第一款各项之一的, 当就该发明在落入之日起六个月以内提出专利申请的, 在适用该条第一款各项之规定时, 其发明视为不落入该条第一款各项之规定。
违背获得专利的权利持有人之意图, 导致发明落入第二十九条第一款各项之一的, 获得专利的权利的持有人就该发明在落入之日起六个月以内提出专利申请的, 该条第一款及第二款的适用也与前款相同。
获得专利的权利的持有人在政府或者地方公共团体 (下称“政府等” ) 举办的博览会或者特许厅长官指定的非政府等举办的博览会上展出, 在巴黎公约缔约国或者世界贸易组织成员境内由其政府等或者得到其政府等的许可者举办的国际性博览会上展出, 或者在特许厅长官指定的非巴黎公约缔约国、 非世界贸易组织成员境内由其政府等或者得到其政府等的许可者举办的国际性博览会上展出, 从而导致发明落入了第二十九条第一款各项规定之一的, 其在落入之日起六个月以内提出专利申请时, 该条第一款及第二款的适用也与第一款相同。

 

条款和规定很长,读起来语言也比较晦涩,那么让我们拆分开来,用一个表格来进行简单对比,看看是否能发现一些端倪。

通过上述表格,我们不难发现,各国法律对于恶意公开都给予了一定程度的保护。对于参加国际展会的行为,同样给予了一定程度的认可,只是对于“国际展会”的名录限定各有不同。比如,中国要求为中国政府主办或者承认,欧专要求必须在1928年11月22日在巴黎签订的、 最后在1972年11月30日修改的《国际展览会公约》中等等。而对与首次发表,规定就比较不具有普遍性了。

 

对比几个国家,我们能发现美国对与不丧失新颖性的排除事由是最为宽泛的。时间周期长,包括了发明人自行披露的情形,这是由于美国采用的先发明制专利制度所决定的。另外,在现实当中,各国的新颖性宽限期的不同规定,确实也给申请人造成了许多不便,因此WIPO也做出了努力,希望能够予以协调统一。但各国对于申请人利益和公众利益考虑偏向的不同,以及各国专利法本身所依据的先申请制和先发明制度的不同,造成重重困难。WIPO至今依然为此在不懈努力。

 

但,无论如何,不丧失新颖性的宽限虽然为权利人提供了这样的救济措施,以保护权利人的利益,但不意味着权利人一定要利用这样的条件进行早期公开的行为。考虑到公开后会导致先用权的产生,在先申请制的中国,对权利人而言,仍然是一个不小的损失。专利先行应该是企业进行知识产权布局、保护的重要前提之一。在开展任何商事活动之前,应该考虑专利保护的相关风险和需求,及时递交专利申请,避免不必要的损失。企业的知识产权相关负责人员也需要始终保持敏感,在发生了“提前披露”的事由时,及时收集相关材料,尽快提交专利申请,利用各国的制度规定维护企业的权益。

 

希望小编的上述分享能够对您保护企业知识产权有所助益。

 

如有任何问题,欢迎随时来电咨询:010-82732278

>> 返回

该网站使用Cookies来提升您的使用体验。欲了解更多信息请查看隐私声明。如继续浏览本网站,则表示您同意我们使用Cookies。您可以随时更改您的Cookies设置。继续 / Cookie使用政策