The Study of Determination of Infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents: From the Clarification of the Reflection of the All Elements Rule

均等論，一個賦予法院將專利保護範圍擴及非專利請求項文義範圍的普通法下產物，儘管經歷了近二個世紀的演變與發展，仍可稱為是專利法上最受爭議的原則之一。 不可否認的是，當均等論被過度擴張適用時，將會與法律要求請求項所具的定義功能及公示作用產生衝突。為了避免這樣的衝突，法院在適用均等論侵權與否時，選擇採逐個別要件或技術特徵觀察而非將發明視為一整體觀察。然而，近來最高法院與智慧財產法院之間似乎就此議題有所衝突。在其中最受爭議的「多功能眼罩案」中，儘管智慧財產法院維持其一貫的「逐要件比對」的判斷方式，最高法院卻明確表達均等論的適用應採「整體觀察」判斷的立場。此二判斷方式究竟是相互衝突還是和諧的？這其實就是應採用全要件原則與否的爭議。 儘管均等論廣為已開發的專利法制系統所承認，其判斷標準與適用方式仍飽受爭議。本文主要以美國法與德國法作為比較之立法例。為平衡專利權人與公眾間的利益衝突，不同的立法例對於非文義侵權之專利權人有不同的保護方式。各國對於均等論的適用表面上看似不同，但經過進一步的比較分析後，會發現其極為類似。本文試圖透過比較法的方式，從公平且適切保護專利權的角度出發，提出對均等論適用的最適方式。 本文架構的第二部分為檢視美國、德國與台灣的專利保護範圍基本法律框架；第三部分則是檢視美國與德國的均等侵權理論適用狀況，包含美國法的全要件原則；第四部分試圖透過奠基於專利制度功能目的來釐清均等論的立論基礎，進而提出對台灣最妥適的均等論適用方式；最後則以結論作為結束。The Doctrine of Equivalents (DOE), a common law creation that allows a court to expand patent scope beyond the rights literally claimed in the patent, might be the most controversial doctrine in patent law despite nearly two hundred years of development. There is without doubt that the DOE, when applied broadly, conflicts with the definitional and public notice function of the statutory claiming requirement. To avoid this conflict, the court adopted the rule that the DOE must be applied to individual claim elements rather than to the invention as a whole. Recent decisions from the Intellectual Property Court (IP court) and the Supreme Court, however, appear to be in conflict. In one of the most controversial court cases concerning an eye massage device, despite the IP Court has continued to use the ""element by element"" approach, the Supreme Court clearly stated that the Doctrine of Equivalents should be applied on an ""as a whole"" basis. Are these two equivalency tests in conflict or in harmony with each other? The issue is about whether we should apply the All Elements Rule or not. Although the need for the DOE is recognized in developed patent systems, the parameters of the doctrine and its appropriate application are still widely debated. This article will compare and contrast the doctrines applied in the U.S. and Germany. Each of these jurisdictions balances the interests between the patentee and the public differently, and each protects the patentee from non-literal infringement in a slightly distinct manner. Facially, each jurisdiction''s implementation of the doctrine of equivalents appears distinct, but closer comparative analysis reveals striking similarities between the application of these doctrines. This Article based on the fair and adequate protection of patent, tries to suggest an optimal legal model for application of the DOE, through the comparative approach. Part II of the article reviews the legal frameworks for determining the protection scope of the patent in the U.S, German and Taiwan. Part III of the article examines the DOE used in the U.S. and Germany including the applications of the All Elements Rule in the U.S. Part IV of the article tries to provide an adequate model for application of the DOE in Taiwan, through clarifying the policy behind the DOE with the patent policy and theory. The Article finishes with a brief conclusion