Evaluating claim conflicts between patents is a crucial issue in patent applications and validity allegations. Existing patent informatics tools do not relate well to the legal requirements of identifying claim conflicts; innovation theory does not address patent evaluations; and the current legal approach has weaknesses in the repeatability between cases. Therefore, a need emerges to design a scientific method for evaluating conflicts between patent claims. This thesis presents research on the topic of identifying, evaluating, and visualising patent conflicts. ‘Conflict’ is used to have the same meaning as obviousness, which is an essential legal term under the UK Patents Act 1977. Building on existing methods, this research provides a novel method called Criteria-Based Patent Mapping, for assessing claim conflicts between patents. ‘Criteria-Based’ means that this assessment uses evaluation criteria that clarify the inventive step of the patent. The source of these criteria is the well-known Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ), which is incorporated into a statistical method of 'Patent Mapping' for evaluating and visualising differences between patent claims. The application of the new method to four case studies shows that there are differences in judging standards between the legal authorities; and also shows an average value of 52% agreement in predicting potential conflicts between patent claims. Based upon these results, the original 39 TRIZ parameters can usually be refined to about 12 criteria. The scope of this method is restricted to patents in mechanical engineering due to the relevancy of TRIZ parameters. This research transforms difficult claim-to-claim evaluations into simpler claim-to-criteria comparisons that lead to more efficient and transparent patent evaluations. Such improvements will be useful for better decision-making in patent strategy.

Currently there are approximately 20,000 valid gene patents in the United States. The debate regarding biotechnology and patent law has reached a pinnacle over the patentability of genes. Biotech is fighting a patentability war on two fronts. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cannot agree regarding the touchstone of patentability for genes; two branches of the Executive are at odds over whether gene sequences qualify under 35 U.S.C. §101. Recent U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit jurisprudence also undermine the patentability of genes as obvious. This thesis argues that the patentable subject matter debate fails to adequately address the goals of patent policy in fostering innovation. Looking to Canadian and U.K. jurisprudence, it is possible to hone an approach to obviousness that addresses the ethical and research concerns in the patentable subject matter debate while fostering investment and patent protection for non-obvious biotech discoveries.

Currently there are approximately 20,000 valid gene patents in the United States. The debate regarding biotechnology and patent law has reached a pinnacle over the patentability of genes. Biotech is fighting a patentability war on two fronts. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cannot agree regarding the touchstone of patentability for genes; two branches of the Executive are at odds over whether gene sequences qualify under 35 U.S.C. §101. Recent U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit jurisprudence also undermine the patentability of genes as obvious. This thesis argues that the patentable subject matter debate fails to adequately address the goals of patent policy in fostering innovation. Looking to Canadian and U.K. jurisprudence, it is possible to hone an approach to obviousness that addresses the ethical and research concerns in the patentable subject matter debate while fostering investment and patent protection for non-obvious biotech discoveries.

It is obvious to anyone familiar with the rules of the game of chess that a king on an empty board can reach every square. It is true, but not obvious, that a knight can reach every square. Why is the first fact obvious but the second fact not? This paper presents an analytic theory of a class of obviousness judgments of this type. Whether or not the specifics of this analysis are correct, it seems that the study of obviousness judgments can be used to construct integrated theories of linguistics, knowledge representation, and inference.

A patent is often characterized as a bargain between an inventor and society. Generally, for a patent to be considered valid, an invention must satisfy three broad criteria: it must be new, useful, and non-obvious. This paper focuses on the requirement of non-obviousness. It explores the criterion from inception to its current state and suggests a potential refinement. A multi-jurisdictional snap-shot is presented focusing on the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, and Canada. It is submitted that the non-obvious prerequisite contains a problematic level of uncertainty. The law of obviousness lacks a baseline standard. To achieve certainty, it is suggested that the law adopt the principles pertaining to patenting combinations and aggregates. Ultimately the law of patents, inclusive of the doctrine of obviousness, must be fashioned and administered in a manner that respects the quid pro quo that has guided the law for many years.

A patent is often characterized as a bargain between an inventor and society. Generally, for a patent to be considered valid, an invention must satisfy three broad criteria: it must be new, useful, and non-obvious. This paper focuses on the requirement of non-obviousness. It explores the criterion from inception to its current state and suggests a potential refinement. A multi-jurisdictional snap-shot is presented focusing on the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, and Canada. It is submitted that the non-obvious prerequisite contains a problematic level of uncertainty. The law of obviousness lacks a baseline standard. To achieve certainty, it is suggested that the law adopt the principles pertaining to patenting combinations and aggregates. Ultimately the law of patents, inclusive of the doctrine of obviousness, must be fashioned and administered in a manner that respects the quid pro quo that has guided the law for many years.

L'impressionnante augmentation du nombre de dépôts de brevets, l'arrivée de nouvelles technologies mais également les nombreuses contestations du système des brevets invitent à se pencher sur la façon dont la notion de brevetabilité a su faire face à l'évolution des techniques et des pratiques. La présente étude propose d'analyser l'évolution contemporaine de la notion de brevetabilité en observant d'abord l'élargissement du domaine de la brevetabilité, avant de s'intéresser à l'assouplissement des conditions de brevetabilité. Les vecteurs de cette évolution vers une plus grande protection sont la lacune législative en matière de définition de l'invention et le recul successif des exclusions à la brevetabilité. Il ressort en outre de l'étude que le critère d'application industrielle doit être vu comme participant de la nature de l'invention, et non comme une condition de brevetabilité. Il apparaît également qu'en réaction à la complexité des nouvelles technologies et à la pression des acteurs économiques, les conditions de nouveauté et d'activité inventive se voient particulièrement assouplies. L'étude conclut a un abaissement du seuil de brevetabilité et à la prolifération de brevets de mauvaises qualité ayant un impact négatif sur l'innovation. / The impressive increase of patent applications, the advent of new technologies but also the numerous challenges that the patent system has to face invite to look at the way the notion of patentability copes with the evolution of art and practices. The present study analyses the evolution of the notion of patentability by observing at first the widening of patentability field, before looking at the softening.of patentability criteria. The means of this evolution toward a wider protection are the absence of any legal definition of invention and the successive backward movement of patentability exclusions. It is shown that industrial application must be seen as part of the ivention definition and not as a criterion. It also appears that in reaction to the complexification of technologies and the pressure of economic actors, novelty and non-obviousness criteria have been largely softened. The conclusion of the study is that the decrease of the patentability threshold and the increase of bad quality patents have a negative impact on innovation.

Ce mémoire traite des brevets d'invention. Le premier volet dresse un portrait global de l'institution juridique du brevet, tout en en rappelant sommairement les fondements économique et philosophique. Après une brève présentation des conditions préalables à sa délivrance, nous discutons des composantes matérielles du brevet, soit la description de l’invention et les revendications. Une attention particulière est portée à la rédaction ainsi qu'à l'interprétation des revendications. Nous traitons ainsi de deux types de revendications spécialisées qui se sont développés avec l'usage, respectivement les revendications de type Jepson et Markush, pour ensuite recenser les principes d'interprétation des revendications que les tribunaux ont établis. Le deuxième volet traite de la validité et de la contrefaçon de brevet. Sur la question de la validité, nous abordons les principaux motifs pouvant entraîner l'invalidité du brevet, soit: l’ambiguïté, l'insuffisance de la divulgation, le double brevet, l'absence de nouveauté, l'évidence et l'absence d'utilité. Enfin, sur la question de la contrefaçon, nous examinons les circonstances dans lesquelles les actes commis par les tiers portent atteinte au monopole du titulaire de brevet. Pour ce faire, nous nous attardons à la portée des droits exclusifs qui sont reconnus à ce dernier. Tant en ce qui a trait à la validité qu'à la contrefaçon, nous recourons à des illustrations jurisprudentielles permettant de constater les incidences litigieuses afférentes, d'une part, aux motifs d'invalidité et, d'autre part, aux actes de contrefaçon. / This thesis pertains to patent law. The first part of the study is an overview of patents, where both economic and philosophical justifications for this legal regime are shortly addressed. After reviewing the requirements for the grant of a patent, we turn our attention to the main sections of a patent, namely the description of the invention and the claims. We then proceed to a thorough analysis of both the writing and construction of patent claims. More specifically, Jepson and Markush claims command our attention, having emerged as widespread methods for writing patent claims. Moreover, principles of claim construction, as devised by courts in the context of litigation, are also examined. The second part of this study pertains to patent validity and infringement. Regarding validity, we discuss a number of irregularities that may be cause for the invalidity of a patent, namely: ambiguity, insufficiency of the disclosure, double patenting, anticipation, obviousness and lack of utility. Lastly, with respect to infringement, we consider the circumstances from which it may arise, based on the actions of a third party alleged to be in violation of the patentee’s monopoly. This is carried by way of appraising the extent of said patentee's exclusive rights. With respect to both validity and infringement, we discuss case law pertaining, in a first instance, to validity issues and, in a second instance, to infringement matters.

Ce mémoire traite des brevets d'invention. Le premier volet dresse un portrait global de l'institution juridique du brevet, tout en en rappelant sommairement les fondements économique et philosophique. Après une brève présentation des conditions préalables à sa délivrance, nous discutons des composantes matérielles du brevet, soit la description de l’invention et les revendications. Une attention particulière est portée à la rédaction ainsi qu'à l'interprétation des revendications. Nous traitons ainsi de deux types de revendications spécialisées qui se sont développés avec l'usage, respectivement les revendications de type Jepson et Markush, pour ensuite recenser les principes d'interprétation des revendications que les tribunaux ont établis. Le deuxième volet traite de la validité et de la contrefaçon de brevet. Sur la question de la validité, nous abordons les principaux motifs pouvant entraîner l'invalidité du brevet, soit: l’ambiguïté, l'insuffisance de la divulgation, le double brevet, l'absence de nouveauté, l'évidence et l'absence d'utilité. Enfin, sur la question de la contrefaçon, nous examinons les circonstances dans lesquelles les actes commis par les tiers portent atteinte au monopole du titulaire de brevet. Pour ce faire, nous nous attardons à la portée des droits exclusifs qui sont reconnus à ce dernier. Tant en ce qui a trait à la validité qu'à la contrefaçon, nous recourons à des illustrations jurisprudentielles permettant de constater les incidences litigieuses afférentes, d'une part, aux motifs d'invalidité et, d'autre part, aux actes de contrefaçon. / This thesis pertains to patent law. The first part of the study is an overview of patents, where both economic and philosophical justifications for this legal regime are shortly addressed. After reviewing the requirements for the grant of a patent, we turn our attention to the main sections of a patent, namely the description of the invention and the claims. We then proceed to a thorough analysis of both the writing and construction of patent claims. More specifically, Jepson and Markush claims command our attention, having emerged as widespread methods for writing patent claims. Moreover, principles of claim construction, as devised by courts in the context of litigation, are also examined. The second part of this study pertains to patent validity and infringement. Regarding validity, we discuss a number of irregularities that may be cause for the invalidity of a patent, namely: ambiguity, insufficiency of the disclosure, double patenting, anticipation, obviousness and lack of utility. Lastly, with respect to infringement, we consider the circumstances from which it may arise, based on the actions of a third party alleged to be in violation of the patentee’s monopoly. This is carried by way of appraising the extent of said patentee's exclusive rights. With respect to both validity and infringement, we discuss case law pertaining, in a first instance, to validity issues and, in a second instance, to infringement matters.

專利制度是知識經濟時代最為重要的一種智慧財產權形式，不但對於技術創新居功厥偉，在國際商業活動中也占有極具份量的地位。而在取得專利的三大要件中，以非顯而易知性（即我國進步性）最為棘手，蓋其本身屬於不確定之法律概念，而容有裁量空間。 非顯而易知性發軔於美國判例法，其後由實務主導其發展。在指標性案例KSR判決中，最高法院揭示了非顯而易知性的審查架構，以Graham四要件法則為根柢，並輔以顯可嘗試原則及彈性運用的TSM檢測法，整體而言KSR判決提高了非顯而易知性的適格門檻。在後KSR時代，CAFC在機械工業、醫藥品與生物科技等領域分別依不同程度適用KSR見解。2009年In re Kubin案確認KSR見解可適用於不可預測性較高之基因生技領域，近幾年來顯可嘗試原則也獲得高度重視。 相較而言，我國進步性審查主要依據智慧財產局所制定的專利審查基準，但行政審查常有過於直觀簡略之嫌；法院判決則在「發明所屬領域中具通常技術者之技術水準」與「該領域具通常技術者參酌先前技術所揭露之內容及申請時的通常知識，是否能所能輕易完成系爭申請發明之整體」此兩步驟的論證上較為欠缺，整體而言達成進步性結論之心證揭露程度不足，對於當事人有突襲性裁判之虞。 本研究基於上述觀察所得，對美國與我國關於非顯而易知性概念之認知與實踐進行比對，並分別就審查實務面與產業因應面提出微薄建議，以期借鏡美國法經驗使我國未來實務操作更趨完善。 / Patent system is one of the most important forms of intellectual property rights in the era of knowledge economy, not only indispensable for technological innovation, also of great influnce in the international business activities. Among the three requirements of patentability, “Non-obviousness” (ie, “Inventive Step” in Taiwan) is the most difficult to fulfill, due to the uncertainty of its legal concept and the room for discretion. Non-obviousness was carved out in the U.S. case law and continuously developed by the court rulings. In the benchmark case KSR v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court articulated that the examination framework of non-obviousness is based on Graham four factors, along with other principles like “Obvious to Try” and the TSM test in a more flexible way. In general, KSR lifted the eligibility threshold for non-obviousness. It has been applied in different degrees by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to various fields such as machinery industry, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology in the post-KSR era. Then it was recognized in 2009 In re Kubin case that the KSR opinion is applicable to the unpredictable field, gene biotechnology, for instance. Besides, the “Obvious to Try” principle has been gaining much attention in recent years. In comparison, both administrative and juducial examinations of inventive step in Taiwan are mainly based on the “Substantive examination guidelines for invention patent” issued by the Intellectual Property Office. However, the administrative review is often reckoned to be too intuitive and rough, and the court decisions are considered to be made with less expression on “the level of the PHOSITA” and “whether a PHOSITA with the reference to prior arts and common knowledge can complete the whole invention without difficulty.” In all, the lack of revealing the reasoning on the inventive step conclusion might expose the parties in danger of surprise judgements. Based on the above observations, this study compared the cognition and practice of non-obviousness both in the United States and in Taiwan, and as a result, presented some primary suggestions in light of the United States’ experience toward both the practice and industries, so that our inventive step examination practice in the future could be improved.