2015年12月19日 星期六

長髮警察免職案背後的憲法問題

我對於個人的服裝儀容,並不符合其公職團體(警察)所訂規範時,而遭多次懲戒,仍不改善而遭受免職處分時,可否引用性別平等法加以申訴,或該處分是否違憲,換句話說,警察的服裝儀容規定男性警察一定要留短髮,有否違反性別平等法,是否違憲?這當然是個爭點。當事人要申訴,要提起釋憲,這是他的權利。

關於此案之違法性部分,如文章「觀點投書:一個長髮男警戳破了警界無視法律的惡習-風傳媒」所述:

「警察不是一個自由的群體,受到法律的拘束,當一個維護社會治安的群體,無法遵守法律,那他們在執行勤務時有何正當性?《性平法》的規定早就已經行之有年,並不是特別針對警察這個職業產生。換言之,警察這個群體將法律視若無睹、職業性別歧視,也早就行之有年。《性平法》保障的是各行各業的從業人員不受到性別刻板印象的歧視,警察當然也一體適用。」

所以,當性別平等法與警察服裝儀容規定,若有牴觸時,哪一個應該修改呢?

而關於此案之違憲性部分,男性於任職警察時堅持留長髮是否屬於憲法保障的基本權利,能否跟伊斯蘭女性教徒,在公開場合一定要罩頭巾或蒙面的教規一樣,足以引用憲法保障宗教自由或信仰自由的條文,或男女平等的明文規定而釋憲推翻,我雖然是贊成的,但我認為由於本屆大法官過去釋憲結果所透露出的極為保守觀念,結果應該不樂觀。尤其此位長髮男警表明自己並沒有性別認同問題,也不是因為維護身體健康等因素,或因為宗教信仰或民俗要求而堅持留長髮,其一再表明僅因留長髮能帶給他安全感而已。

不過,我對於本案爭議處理過程中,顯示當事人受律師辯護權的維護,並未受重視,更覺得很不以為然。

我認為律師在場且能替當事人進行實質有效的辯護,維護其應有權益,應該是所謂任何「正當程序」中的「必要」環節,才能維護其基本人權。所以,不論是訴訟中,或所謂的考績會/人評會,唯有當場由律師提供實質有效的辯護,才能說是有給當事人充分辯解的機會,這並不是事前的演練或提醒可以取代的。考績會/人評會的決定,影響當事人的權益重大,當事人當然有權聘請律師協助其辯護,不論其是否屬於訴訟程序,因為這是他的憲法保障之基本權利,也就是訴訟權的體現呀。考績法有哪一條禁止當事人委任的律師陪同出席?因此,警察機關無故剝奪他這個憲法權利,是違法也違憲的。

國外民主先進國家都以為然,國內則連刑事偵訊也僅允許律師在場而已,律師說話就是干擾偵訊,還會被趕出場。連機關自辦的考績會/人評會,也都不准當事人請的律師在場。唉,其間相差懸殊,距離真的不可以道里計。

公法爭訟:警蓄髮違紀遭免職 保二:個人不得凌駕團體
這個案子涉及基本權干預問題,後續救濟程序發展有趣。
報載:鍾國文說,葉員向媒體表示考績會僅開10分鐘,其實不然,而是開了1個小時以上,有給與葉員充分時間表達意見,而考績會不屬於訴訟,故不得律師一同出席,全國警察機關皆是如此。
不屬於訴訟,所以在影響身分重大的考績會也不得享有律師協助權利,有道理嘛?


今下午,保安警察第二總隊第二大隊警員葉繼元為護工作權召開記者會,保…
M.LTN.COM.TW

2015年12月12日 星期六

為頂新辯護的律師為什麼不能為評鑑法官的律師代表?

我不知道羅律師他擔任頂新這被告的辯護人,這有什麼不對?

那些法官與法學界人士,認為這樣有問題的,站出來呀!不要只敢躲在幕後,在媒體放話。

你是說台灣的律師都不能替頂新這個被告辯護了嗎?那要律師做什麼?

黃先生,你要負責養我們嗎?

被告是否有罪,是由多級法院經過公平審判程序而判定的,不是檢察官,不是律師,更不是媒體。

律師擔任辯護人時的職責就是在法庭上盡力替被告辯護,使其與檢察官武器對等,以利法庭查明真相,並讓無罪的被告開釋,也不讓有罪的被告受到過度的懲罰,是公平審判制度的核心。

即使是惡魔,在法庭上,還是需要有律師替其辯護,律師也不可以因個人好惡或因獲知真實案情而洩密或因而不盡力替當事人辯護。這是律師這職業的特殊倫理,不能接受的人就不能做這行。

我知道很多律師不是為了錢而接這種辯護案的,而再罪大惡極的人也有接受公平審判的權利,而合格且盡力的辯護人,是這公平審判制度的核心已如前述。

台灣人因為承繼中國文化,習於由縣令(鄉長)查案審案斷案並執行,期待類似包青天這種問到一半就推出去斬了,或習近平這種黨政軍特一把抓強勢領導說了算的文化,而對於何謂公平審判沒有認識,才會對律師的職責與角色有所誤解,而認為律師都是收錢來幫壞人脫罪,律師比壞人還壞,一嘆!

請繼續閱讀:

---

頂新案彰化地院判無罪,司法官與法學界不滿頂新的律師羅豐胤獲任法官評鑑委員會的委員,批「律師左手為大財團辯護,右手評鑑法官...
HTTP://UDN.COM/NEWS/STORY/2/1366645|由聯合新聞網上傳
頂新劣油案一審獲判無罪,引發外界反彈,擔任頂新辯護律師的羅豐胤更以…
NEWS.LTN.COM.TW

2015年12月11日 星期五

歐盟單一專利制度蓄勢待發

我以前的部屬,歐洲專利律師,Stefano John,請我轉載他最近為北美智權報寫的一篇文章,我深感榮幸,當然照辦。各位對歐洲專利有興趣的讀者,可以參考。

歐盟單一專利制度蓄勢待發
Stefano John / Jinn IP事務所 歐洲專利律師
中文翻譯╱北美智權專利法規研究組
2015.12.02

單一專利包裹法案(Unified Patent Package,簡稱UPP)是歐盟2012年底提出的立法計畫,由於過去類似提案都胎死腹中,究竟這個涵蓋歐洲共同市場的單一專利能否成功,當時包括筆者在內,許多人都心存懷疑。然而經過數月來的發展,事態變得越來越明朗,UPP很有可能在2016年底前上路。

之所以有UPP此一立法提案,目的是讓整個歐洲共同市場建立由EPO(歐洲專利局)統一審查公告的單一專利制度。過去未能建立歐盟單一專利制度,語文是其中一項主要問題,關鍵在於必須尊重所有歐盟成員國使用的語文。而依UPP規畫,只需使用EPO現行其中一種官方語文(即英文、法文、德文)公告。由於多數歐洲專利皆以英文公告,附加專利範圍的法文及德文譯文,其目的在降低翻譯成本,年費則向個別專利局繳交,從而使更多人(尤其是一般多使用英文的外國申請人)負擔得起歐洲專利申請所需。

除歐盟單一專利之外,UPP方案還計畫設立單一專利法院(Unified Patent Court,簡稱UPC),為歐洲共同市場內專利有效性及侵權與否提供穩定而單一的判斷機制,以遏止專利所有權人在歐盟不同會員國中選擇法院(forum shopping)的風氣,也希望藉此避免個別法院對EPO公告同一專利是否有效及(或)遭到侵害提出不同見解、產生混淆。

單一專利法院可以遏止「forum shopping」風氣

UPP在歐盟所有相關國家正式生效有兩項前提:法國、英國、德國的立法機關需批准UPP提案,且歐盟需有至少13個成員國批准UPP提案。由於法國、英國、德國是倡議最力的三國,批准UPP看樣子是只欠東風(也就是等數字敲定、有關布局就位),早晚的事。截至2015年10月,已有8國批准UPP提案,包括法國,因此除德國及英國之外,再有兩個歐盟國家批准,UPP就能生效。這當中英國已備妥立法提案(IP Act 2014),且跡象顯示芬蘭也正要跟進,因此歐盟似乎的確是有推動UPP的政治意願,至少政府公部門是如此。

設立UPP的其中一項難關是語文,而歐盟單一專利只會以三種官方語文擇一公告,無需在不同國家提交不同語文的譯文。如先前文章所說,針對這一點的反對意見主要來自義大利及西班牙,兩國的反對明顯有國家利益動機,其中一項動機是保護本國翻譯歐洲公告專利的智權服務業(至少這是兩國皆未加入倫敦協定的原由),因此原先兩國都不打算加入UPP。

其中,義大利願意參加UPC,但僅限義大利本土專利;西班牙則是到歐盟法院(European Courts of Justice,簡稱ECJ)狀告歐盟委員會(EU Commission)。今年夏天,西班牙敗訴,UPP基本取得ECJ發出的通行證;10月間,義大利也放棄抗爭,正式請求加入UPP。歐盟28國,若加計義大利,歐盟單一專利的保護範圍將可涵蓋26國,僅西班牙和克羅埃西亞排除在外。

新專利年費制度尚待確認

推動UPP的另一項難關是成本。之前EPO首度端出成本提案時,筆者即曾撰文討論。當時EPO提出TOP4、TOP5兩個成本方案,並對部分群體提供優惠減免,而後外界對他們各項評估的批評建議,EPO也都虛心接受,進而調整了TOP4的單一專利定價計算方式(單一專利年費,約當英國、法國、德國、荷蘭,即目前歐洲專利前四大進入指定國年費加總之和),第3至第10年的費用略有降低。義大利既已表態加入,目前尚不清楚規費計算方式會否再隨之調整,且EPO行政理事會也還未決定TOP4、TOP5何者為佳。

至於UPC,如先前報導,許多企業都對可能採行類似德國的禁制令制度(分別評估是否有侵權事實及專利是否有效,同時下達禁制令)感到憂心,但為減少這類問題產生,UPC有關條文業已經過修訂,且未來的UPC法官也都得接受訓練,有助於防止非專利實施實體(non-practicing entity,簡稱NPE)濫用此一制度。UPC倫敦分院已經完成選址,相關工作如火如荼進行中,而誰能代表在UPC出庭遞狀也已談定:執業律師,以及部分合格的歐洲專利執業律師(筆者即是其中一員),都可在各地UPC法院代表客戶處理有關事務。

UPP大小事還沒有全部拍板定案,UPP體系也尚未架構完全,但只要各國仍保有推動UPP的政治意願,生效之日應該不會太遠。多數障礙都已經克服,反對UPP的內部勢力及遊說團體大半也已妥協,當然,影響整個歐陸及歐盟內部政局的重大因素仍可能封殺UPP,不過以當今局勢來看,UPP上路前發生這類事件的機率微乎其微,而UPP生效後即使發生這類事件,屆時也極可能無足輕重。

作者:Stefano John
現任:Jinn IP事務所 歐洲專利律師
Stefano曾任職於歐洲專利局以及多家歐洲專利事務所,並於2009年取得歐洲專利律師資格。2012年至2015年間,他任職於北美智權,並開始定期為北美智權報撰寫專欄。目前Stefano於英國牛津創立Jinn IP事務所,協助各國客戶申請歐洲專利。


UPP and UPC projects march on
Stefano John / European Patent Attorney at Jinn IP

The UPP (Unified Patent Package) was a legislative package first introduced by the EU in late 2012. At the time, there was much scepticism whether this unified patent for the single European market would work where other proposals have failed in the past, including on part of this author. However the changes that have occurred in the last few months make it seem quite probable that the UPP system will be in place by late 2016.

The UPP is a legislative package that introduces the possibility a single unified patent for the entire EU single market. This would be examined and granted solely by the EPO. One of the main problems in setting it up in the past was the issue of languages and the need to respect all EU member states' languages. The UPP package introduces the concept that the patent should only be granted in the 3 languages currently used by the EPO, namely English, French and German. Thus the majority of the patents would be granted in English, with translation of the claims in French and German. The purpose would be to save money on translations and renewal fees being paid to separate offices, thus rendering the European patent system more affordable, especially to foreign applicants (as they use English).

Together with the unitary patent, a unified patent court system (UPC) would be set up by the UPP package to provide a stable unified patent system for determining validity and infringement across the single market. This would hopefully prevent forum shopping across different member states and confusion in infringement and/or validity patent cases arising from the same patent as granted by the EPO.

For the UPP system to come into force for all interested countries, 13 EU countries need to ratify the UPP package in their own country's legislative system. France, UK and Germany must be one of these 13 countries or, if 13 have already ratified, ratify it also. Given that these 3 countries were the most vocal in proposing this legislation, it seems certain that they will ratify when the time is right (i.e. when the numbers allow it and the relevant structures are in place). As of Oct. 2015, 8 countries have already ratified the UPP package, and only France is one of them. Thus 2 more EU countries need to ratify it, together with Germany and the UK and the UPP system will come into force. The UK has the relevant legislation already in place (IP Act 2014) and there are signs that Finland is preparing to ratify. Thus it seems that the political will, at least on part of the governments, is there to put in force the UPP system.

One of the main obstacles with setting up the UPP system was languages, and the fact that the patent would be published as granted only in one of the 3 languages without requiring translation in different countries. As mentioned before in this newsletter, the main opponents to this aspect of the legislation were Italy and Spain for clear national motivations. One such motivation, though not the only one, was to protect their national IP services industry that earns  from filing translations of granted EP patents (at least this is the reason neither country joined the London Agreement on the translation of EP patents). As such, both countries stated they would not adhere to the UPP. Italy would adhere to the UPC, but only for national Italian patents. Spain started proceedings against the EU Commission before the European Courts of Justice (ECJ). Over the summer, Spain lost these proceedings; the ECJ basically giving their go-ahead to the UPP system. In October 2015, Italy also gave up and formally requested to join the entire UPP Package. At present, if one included Italy, a single unified patent would cover 26 of the 28 EU member states, leaving only Spain and Croatia out of the EU patent's territorial monopoly.

Another serious factor regarding the UPP was the costs involved. The author has spoken before about this topic when the EPO first proposed their costs. The EPO proposed two cost structures: “TOP4” or “TOP5” with some discounts for specific parties. The EPO has since taken on board some of the criticism in their evaluation and adjusted their TOP4 calculations for setting the price of a unified patent (unified patent price of renewals is roughly equal to the cost in paying renewals in the top 4 countries for current EP patent validation, which are UK, France, Germany and Netherlands). As a result, the TOP 4 cost has been reduced slightly for years 3-10. It is not clear if the fact that Italy wishes to be part of the Unified Patent now may change this calculation again. The EPO Admin Council still has to make a decision on whether TOP4 or TOP5 is the more appropriate cost system to implement.
With regards to the UPC, one of the main issues that worried many companies was the possibility of having the injunctive system (evaluating infringement and validity separately and imposing injunctions in the meanwhile), as practised by some countries (e.g. Germany), applied to unified patents across the entire single market. We have already covered this in a previous article. The UPC has modified the wording of the relevant provisions to try and curtail this happening and the future UPC judges have been trained to spot possible abuse on part of non-practising entities. The site in London for the central division of the UPC has been decided and work on its conversion has already started. The question of who can act before the UPC has also been decided – attorneys-at-law and some qualified practising European Patent Attorneys (such as the author) will be allowed to represent clients in all the European UPC courts.

Not every issue regarding the UPP has yet been decided and the UPP system is still not in place. But if the political will remains, it should not take long for it to come into force. Most obstacles have been surmounted and most internal parties/lobbies opposing it have been dealt with. Of course, stronger factors affecting politics across the entire European continent and within the EU could still derail the entire UPP project, but it now seems that such an event might occur after the UPP has already come into force and thus probably cannot affect it, or no as much!

Author:Stefano John, European Patent Attorney
Current:European Patent Attorney at Jinn IP
Stefano John has previously worked at the EPO and for a variety of European patent firms, both before and after qualifying as European Patent Attorney in 2009. Since 2012, he has worked at NAIPO, often contributing to this newsletter. Since Oct. 2015 he has started Jinn IP – a European IP firm tailored for foreign applicants wanting to file in Europe based in Oxford, UK.

2015年12月9日 星期三

安全性,永遠是汽機車設計者的第一目標!

我對於Gogoro設計團隊竟然採用容易脆裂,會造成重大安全事故的壓鑄鋁車架,而不是會彎但不易斷的傳統鋼構車架,感到震驚,也很不以為然!

邱志豪:站在工程的立場當然會質疑為什麼不能做出更好的功能?站在設計的立場也會想,為什麼不能做出更好的造型?
產品規格取決於成本,成本高售價相對提升,因此工程團隊會因為老板的意思刻意取符合設計需求的零組件與測試條件,老板為什麼會下這樣的決策,取決這般功能,這就是讓人納悶的地方!
文中寫得很有趣,其實裡面很含蓄寫著,國外很多工程設計團隊都來攤位上了解GOGORO,這張照片理所謂的"民眾",其實都是工程師偽裝,您看出來了嗎?

Roger Chen: 因為大家都很好奇竟然會有車廠蠢到用酥脆的壓鑄鋁來做車架,過來嘖嘖稱奇一下~~

鐘傑西:有做還有改進的空間,沒做永遠只有嘴砲的空間

翁瑞泓:但改進的空間不能是建立在騎乘者的安全顧慮之上的...

鐘傑西:安全顧慮之上如果沒有進步空間哪來更安全的設計?

翁瑞泓:當然 但不能把安全顧慮放在其它的設計優先序之下來考慮 你說的是達到基本安全顧慮以後的事 所以才叫之上 但現在很明顯的這台車叫之下...

Roger Chen: 基本上改進的唯一空間就是換調壓鑄鋁這酥脆的材質~~
但是它這車架的造型只有壓鑄鋁才有可能做得出來,只要換材質就是其他零件的造型與固定孔位都要全改~~
所以唯一的改進法就是整台填海全部重新設計重新開模一切重來~~
但是錢都投下去了怎可能填海???
所以只能運用一切的公關廣告施壓手法來XX消費者,看能賣出多少台回收多少錢就盡量X,等到東窗事發被禁賣要賠錢了再XXXX就好了~~

鐘傑西: 所以他們設計師說了我們不顧安全疑慮 因為我們考量其他設計?

Roger Chen: 設計師當然是顧慮自己的生計退路優先啊~~反正到時賠償是公司賠~~

翁瑞泓:所以他們設計師只跟你談外觀及UI設計
你想問多細他就能講多細給你聽
當你談到安全顧慮時
官方的回應永遠是這一段
"Gogoro 對於品質與安全的追求從不鬆懈,感謝各位對此問題的關注與分享,我們會繼續努力。"
還是我有所疏漏
你能夠提供任何官方對於其車架結構安全性的詳細說明跟解釋?

鐘傑西:一體成形的鋁合金車架採用沖壓方式製成,為了沖壓這麼多圓弧的板件,Gogoro 車架採用多達九軸的機台沖壓,沖壓完成後以航太級結構膠,膠合組成主要的車體核心。車架採用陽極處理,不僅有平整如 MacBook 的質感,也有不會鏽蝕的特性。
實際上 Gogoro 採用的 DOW Chemical 膠也同樣被汽車廠 Jaguar 以及 Lotus 所採用,並且 Gogoro 車架經過十萬公里的耐久性測試,安全性無虞。除了膠合部分採用機械手臂完成,重點部位也用螺絲補強,在外觀上盡可能做到平滑平整。
我想做設計需要很多創新與突破的空間,當然安全性很重要,但之前也必須做了很多功課來驗證他們的猜測這是開發過程中必須要拔河的階段,官方說他們經歷了10萬公里的道路測試也許他們覺得夠了,也許他們測試的環境不是那麼的嚴苛,在我看來他們的確做出了一些改變,其他改善或是改良的東西難道不是做出來之後再慢慢微調的嗎? iphone 第一代也不是那樣的完善阿~ 或許你對安全性在行請你提供建議給他們這樣也是很好的事~~

Roger Chen: [車架採用多達九軸的機台沖壓]---->這就是問題所在~~
因為金屬的延展性有一定的極限,每多一個軸向的沖壓就會減弱一部份的強度~~
就算用延展性很好的鋼材,我們汽車廠在沖壓時也盡量避免讓軸向多於三軸,若要做更複雜的曲面件時,寧可分為兩三個零件,做好再來焊接膠合以確保材料仍有足夠強度~~
而GGR對延展性本來就很糟的鋁材竟做了多達九軸向的沖壓,這就好像一張紙板被往不同方向折了九次,鈑件根本就已經爛稀稀的了,就算用啥神膠來黏也是跟紙糊的一樣~~
所以光他們那句話就知道對沖壓件設計是完全外行,千萬別再玩命了~~

Roger Chen:GGR設計團隊天真以為只要鈑件是盡量一體成形強度就會好,卻不知若沖超過三軸向的強度會比分件還差,下場就是這樣~~
但若是都分為兩三件來沖,那模具數目就會兩三倍,成本也會再翻倍,一樣是死路一條~~

Vincent Chen:台灣的設計師沒有對製造與材質多做研究,只注重外型,是很糟糕的事。做車輛工業,安全性更是應該擺第一位才對。我對GGR設計團隊很失望。

鐘傑西:他們真得是天真地以為阿~ 不過他們也勇敢的去做了,我的重點不是九軸還是幾軸,重點在於他們去做了且驗證並發現問題~ 也沒人規定一定要幾軸來處理強度才夠,這些都是來自"經驗"
而你不做永遠都還是停留在舊有的經驗上,那當初那些篳路藍縷的前輩們沒有前者的經驗他們又是來自誰的經驗去設計新的東西呢
如果大家覺得你們有方法比他們更好,為何不嘗試去做看看呢?到時候我一定非常挺你們的~
這裡不是創意產品開發的社團嗎? 我來錯了嗎?

Roger Chen: 這些經驗在載具設計業一百五十年來已經用無數的性命去去換來了,任何過正統專業載具設計教育的合格設計師都不會犯這種錯~~
問題是台灣企業不捨得花應有的國際薪資行情(年薪30萬美金起跳)去聘任受過這正統專業教育的合格設計師,貪省薪資找沒學過的外行人來搞,下場就是賠更多~~
汽車設計跟醫學一樣都是用一兩百年無數生命的經驗建立起來的專業系統,絕不可能無師自通~~
不捨得花錢請正牌醫生,一群密醫亂搞就是醫死人,不知要醫死多少人才會找到真正病因??
設計載具不能用試的,因為用試的就是會出人命(真的發生了)~~
乍看之下,請個年薪千萬的設計師來讓一切都沒問題似乎花很多,但以每年賣5000台銷售五年來算,每台車也才攤提400元設計費~~
而台灣企業開出的薪資卻只有國際行情的一成,根本是來亂的,鬼才要來做慈善事業~~
因此在企業的眼中,消費者的性命只值40元~~

蔡一豪: 任何新技術新產品在起步的階段都會有地方有待改進 若只是因為舊的做法強度更好點 把別人的創新批得一文不值 那誰還想創新

Roger Chen: 問題是任何過正統專業載具設計教育的合格設計師都知道:[用壓鑄鋁做車體是早已失敗過而被淘汰的舊方法]~~
人類經過半個世紀的努力好不容易才找出現行的鋼管車架罩膠殼是最輕最強的結構(所有超跑與仿賽重機機是如此),現在卻有沒學過[載具失敗史]的外行人來重蹈覆轍~~
而且事實實測還真的是完全歷史重演,照樣斷骨照樣死人~~
創新不是壞事,但請先確認是真的創[新],而非復[舊]~~
任何技術會被淘汰都有其緣故,若不明就理又做得一樣,那一樣不會有不同結果的~~
衝壓式車體目前都是運用於非性能載具(例如大量製造的乘用車與輕型商用機車),因為不講究高強度又須極大量快速製造~~
所以雖然大型沖壓模具要數十億元,但其銷量能夠回本~~
但目前全球機車市場已無像以前金旺或偉士牌那種單一車款數十萬台的需求,所以沖壓車體註定無法回本~~

今年六月在台灣正式開賣的GOGORO電動車堪稱是2015年關注度最高且話…
FORUM.JORSINDO.COM|由 DISCUZ! TEAM AND COMSENZ UI TEAM 上傳
揚昇法律.專利事務所 以現在GOGORO的結構設計而言,不說碰撞安全規範,單單想要達到量產汽機車的 ISO 26262安全與可靠性標準,然後可以外銷歐美日等地區,真的可能需要照Roger Chen的建議:「全部打掉,重做一次」。

安全性,永遠是汽機車設計者的第一目標!

依據2011年公布的ISO 26262 規定,量產汽機車之系統安全性分析必須確保最終產品能夠符合法規要求,從產品設計、研發,到生產、維修階段,都必須落實系統安全性分析。

系統安全性分析的目的,在於根據安全性目標,評估構想中的機電系統是否達到要求,並且:
判斷系統效能評量指標和危險性等級
確認構想中的系統能否達到原先預定的安全性目標。
檢視測試、製造控制和實地操作意見反應,以監控法規遵循性
系統安全性分析將根據不同的預期風險,運用相關的可靠性工程分析法,包括:
可靠性預測:判斷零件和系統的故障率
FMEA:評估零件、組件、系統設計和流程的故障模式和所造成的影響
測試計劃和製造控制計劃:控管機電風險
失誤樹分析:定義系統效能邏輯模型,找出重大影響的原因
FRACAS:從不符合項、客訴和 CAPA 層面追蹤各環節的故障,包括測試、製造和現場故障,並執行矯正措施或避免未來再發生

2015年12月8日 星期二

如何善用歐洲多重附屬項的寫法

歐洲專利申請案的請求項若超過十五項,就要加貴到嚇死人的超項費與超頁費(由2014/4/1開始,申請專利範圍的超項費 (fee for additional claims):第16項起,每項加收235歐元,第51項起,每項加收580歐元;說明書的超頁費 (fee for additional pages):第36頁起,每頁加收15歐元),而美國是20項以上,才要加收超項費(獨立項超項費:超過3項,每項加收460美元;總項數超項費:超過20項,每項加收100美元),而且超項費沒有歐洲那麼貴。

但是歐洲專利局並不會像美國專利商標局那樣重複計算多重附屬項,而且多重附屬項有撰寫簡潔、涵蓋完整,並彰顯共同上位概念的好處,我認為合格的專利工程師應該學會善用這種歐式請求項的撰寫手法。

而我以前的部屬,歐洲與英國專利律師Stefano John(現職:Jinn IP Ltd. www.jinnip.com 主持專利律師所寫的這個文章,就是教你如何善用歐洲多重附屬項的寫法,以替客戶省錢並取得較完整與廣泛的專利範圍,(原文發表於:

北美智權報第110期:美國與歐洲撰寫附屬項方式之異同),敬請參考。


美國與歐洲撰寫附屬項方式之異同
郭史蒂夫/北美智權 教育訓練處 歐洲專利律師
2014.07.01
本文將說明美國與歐洲專寫附屬項的差異,如何把一個美國寫法的權利請求範圍,轉換成歐洲寫法的專利書請求項,而又不想會增加額外的費用?同時又可以重新定義發明,避免因多重附屬項而彰顯的單一性問題。
當我們在討論專利權範圍中的附屬項時,通常指的都是美國與歐洲撰寫方式上的差異,在這個方面,我們需要考慮三個主要議題,即成本、發明單一性以及增添的標的。
美國的制度是允許撰寫20個請求項,若超過20項則需要額外付費。這算是一個相當多的數量,能夠撰寫這麼多的請求項,是因為美國的專利制度使用一個簡單的依附系統。因為儘管是同一個發明概念,也有可能會產生不同層面的發明 (例如插頭跟插座) ,美國還允許最多三個獨立項以完善描述一個發明。多重附屬項在美國是准許的,不過多重附屬項只能允許附屬於單一的請求項,這也就是為什麼在撰寫美國專利權請求範圍時,會有很多的重複,每組附屬項通常會重複著與別組請求項相同的較佳實施例,而不管它們是依附在哪個獨立項。
歐洲的撰寫方式主要使發明單一性的問題與附屬項更加聯繫在一起。在歐洲,超過15個請求項就必須額外付費。這是否意味著因為能撰寫的請求項較少,所以如果沒有多付超項費,能夠納入保護的較佳實施例也會較少呢?其實不盡然,因為多重附屬項是允許相同的請求項去依附,也就是包含發明的多個層面。關於這種現象請參考Box1,請注意請求項的數量是表達在樹狀圖中的第三排。
Box 1
美國寫法 – 10個請求項
歐洲寫法– 7個請求項
  1. 一產品A。
  2. 如請求項1所述之產品A,其中A包含有X。
  3. 如請求項1所述之產品A,其中A包含有Y。
  4. 如請求項1所述之產品A,其中A係為A’ 。
  5. 如請求項4所述之產品A,其中A’ 包含有Z。
  6. 一產品 B.
  7. 如請求項6所述之產品B,其中B包含有X。
  8. 如請求項6所述之產品B,其中B包含有Y。
  9. 如請求項6所述之產品B,其中B為B’ 。
  10. 如請求項9所述之產品B,其中B’ 包含有Z。
  1. 一產品A。
  2. 一產品B。
  3. 如請求項1或2所述之產品A或B,其中A或B包含有X。
  4. 如請求項1或2所述之產品A或B,其中A或B包含有Y。
  5. 如請求項1所述之產品A,其中A系為A’。
  6. 如請求項2所述之產品B,其中B系為B’。
  7. 如請求項5或6所述之產品A或B,其中A或B包含有Z。

Box 1是一個非常簡單的轉換,從美國的寫法轉換成歐洲的寫法,其中只牽涉到簡單的多重附屬項而已。單單這樣,我們就可以把請求項的數量由10個減少到7個,然而如以下諸多理由所述,這仍不是具有效率的轉換方式。
多重附屬項意味著他們必須依附請求項1和請求項2,簡單的同時依附請求項1與請求項2,並無法真正改善這種狀況,因為附屬項仍須參照A或B,而因此表彰的問題是,這種寫法只是參照兩個分開的發明實體(A與B),而沒有定義他們為一個單獨的實體。
在這樣的狀況下,當任何審查委員收到這種說明書時,他們會質疑此案會有發明單一性的問題。當然,本案可能有一個很好的理由將該發明定義為兩個不同的實體,不過還是要看個案的具體狀況而定。從這個例子中,我們可以由歐洲實行多重附屬項的撰寫方式看出,這種寫法會警示我們申請案可能缺乏發明單一性的問題。
克服這個問題比較好的方法是將發明定義在一個單一的概念下,請參考Box 2,將A和B定義為一個統稱(上位概念)G,當加入這樣一個統稱G時,可能會伴隨專利標的之增加(如果不是,為何之前僅用了A與B呢?),至少在歐洲,這種做法會導致很仔細的審查,但很少會被核准。
Box 2
美國寫法 – 10個請求項
歐洲寫法– 6個請求項
  1. 一產品A。
  2. 如請求項1所述之產品A,其中A包含有X。
  3. 如請求項1所述之產品A,其中A包含有Y。
  4. 如請求項1所述之產品A,其中A係為A’ 。
  5. 如請求項4所述之產品A,其中A’ 包含有Z。
  6. 一產品 B.
  7. 如請求項6所述之產品B,其中B包含有X。
  8. 如請求項6所述之產品B,其中B包含有Y。
  9. 如請求項6所述之產品B,其中B為B’ 。
  10. 如請求項9所述之產品B,其中B’ 包含有Z。
  1. 一產品 G。
  2. 如請求項1所述之產品G,其中G包含有X。
  3.  如請求項1或2所述之產品G,其中G包含有Y。
  4. 如請求項1-3所述之產品G,其中G係為A’。
  5. 如請求項1-3所述之產品G,其中G係為B’。
  6. 如請求項4或5所述之產品G,其中A’或B’ 包含有Z。

G是一個A和B的通稱。這種詞語通常牽涉到新增的標的,因此請求項中有新增的專利標的,將在下圖中用粗體與底線標示。
在此我們就發現了轉換到多重附屬項上的第二個問題:新增的標的。
新增的標的可能會使多重附屬項非常有效,因為所有附屬項相對的特徵都能與其他的具有關聯,我們可以從Box 3看出這種關係。請注意,在Box 3中不同層面的發明被寫入多重附屬項中,而這是在美國寫法中不存在的版本,例如(A’ with Y and Z)或是(B and X and Y)。有趣的是,這樣用較少的請求項就可以搞定了!
這樣的結論似乎是不錯的。我們起因於想要減少請求項數量,進而避免增加成本,而這始終是一個目標(見Box 1),但這樣會造成單一性問題(可能是問題本來就存在)。再來,我們重新將發明定義在一個單一概念上(見Box 2),試圖改善這一點,通常會需要增加專利標的。既然要添加專利標的,不如藉由在更多的附屬項插入該等標的,以擴大範圍(見Box 3)。
Box 3
美國寫法 – 10個請求項
歐洲寫法– 6個請求項
  1. 一產品A。
  2. 如請求項1所述之產品A,其中A包含有X。
  3. 如請求項1所述之產品A,其中A包含有Y。
  4. 如請求項1所述之產品A,其中A係為A’ 。
  5. 如請求項4所述之產品A,其中A’ 包含有Z。
  6. 一產品 B。
  7. 如請求項6所述之產品B,其中B包含有X。
  8. 如請求項6所述之產品B,其中B包含有Y。
  9. 如請求項6所述之產品B,其中B為B’ 。
  10. 如請求項9所述之產品B,其中B’ 包含有Z。
  1. 一產品 G。
  2. 如請求項1所述之產品G,其中G係為A或B。
  3. 如請求項1或2所述之產品G,其中G係為A’或B’。
  4. 如請求項1-3 所述之產品G,其中G包含有X。
  5. 如請求項1-4 所述之產品G,其中G包含有Y。
  6. 如請求項1-5 所述之產品G,其中G包含有Z。

 (下圖中所有使用粗體與底線標示的請求項,具有新增的專利標的)

上面的例子是要說明,如何把一個美國寫法的權利請求範圍,轉換成歐洲寫法的專利請求項,而又不會增加額外的費用。同時,我們又可以考慮重新定義發明,避免因多重附屬項而被彰顯的單一性問題。通常在做這些考慮時,可能係在有前案存在的前提下,而另一方面,這很可能意味需要增加專利標的,所以我們需要進行綜合評估。也就是說,這些請求項描述方式的轉換與各種考慮,我們若不是在優先權案的撰寫時(例如在其描述或說明書中),就是在提交國家階段申請的修改時,這兩個階段中來完成。第二個選項是比較不好的選擇,因為發生在優先權日與申請日之間的揭露可能會影響到請求項的有效性。因此,想要在之後節省請求項的超項費或是不被強迫分案,在不同國家申請時,提前規劃附屬項的安排就是很重要的功課,特別是在優先權案的撰寫階段。這就是為什麼在請求項的撰寫過程中,如本文所述之涉及各種層面的專業建議,是需要您所詳加考慮的。

作者:郭史蒂夫 歐洲專利律師
現任:勁智財公司 Jinn IP, Ltd. www.jinnip.com
經歷:北美智權教育訓練處 /歐洲專利律師
Bryers事務所 歐洲專利律師
Bugnion SpA事務所 歐洲專利學習律師
Notabartolo & Gervasi事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 歐洲專利局 實習生
英國牛津大學生物化學、細胞與分子生物系,生化碩士
英國倫敦大學瑪莉皇后學院,智財管理碩士


Claim dependencies and why they matter in US or Europe
Stefano John NAIP Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney
When one discusses about claim dependencies in patent applications, one is mainly talking about the difference between the US system and the European model. Within this aspect, one has to consider about three major issues – costs, unity of invention and addition of subject matter.
The US system is thus structured to allow up to 20 claims to be examined without paying additional costs. This is quite a high number of claims and it results from the fact that the US system insists on simple dependency system. Because an invention may have different aspects to it even though they are still related to the same invention (for example a plug and socket invention), up to 3 independent claims are allowed to cover the separate aspects properly. Multiple dependent claims are allowed in the US system, but they are only allowed when they depend on single claims. This is why there is much repetition in the US claim system, each set of dependent claim typically repeating the same preferred embodiments as the other sets irrespective of the independent claim they depend on.
The European system uses mainly a system where the unity of invention is more associated with claim dependencies. In Europe, additional costs are incurred if there are more than 15 claims. Does this imposition for smaller number of claims mean that less preferred embodiments of the invention may not be allowed without spending more? Not really, because multiple dependencies allow one to cover more aspects of the invention in the same claim. See Box 1 as an example of this phenomenon. Please note that the number of claims is represented by the graphics tree in the third row of Box 1.
Box 1
US system – 10 claims
European system – 7 claims
  1. A product A.
  2. The product A according to claim 1, wherein A is combined with X.
  3. The product A according to claim 1, wherein A is combined with Y.
  4. The product A according to claim 1, wherein A is A’.
  5. The product A according to claim 4, wherein A’ is combined with Z.
  6. A product B.
  7. The product B according to claim 6, wherein B is combined with X.
  8. The product B according to claim 6, wherein B is combined with Y.
  9. The product B according to claim 6, wherein B is B’.
  10. The product B according to claim 9, wherein B’ is combined with Z.
  1. A product A.
  2. A product B.
  3. The product A or B according to claim 1 or 2, wherein A or B is combined with X.
  4. The product A or B according to claim 1 or 2, wherein A or B is combined with Y.
  5. The product A according to claim 1, wherein A is A’.
  6. The product B according to claim 2, wherein B is B’.
  7. The product A or B according to claim 5 or 6, wherein A’ or B’ is combined with Z.

Box 1 is a very simple change from the US system to the European system that involves simply introducing multiple dependencies and nothing else. This achieves a reduction of the total number of claims from 10 to 7. It is however a less than efficient conversion for a couple of reasons which are intertwined.
The multiple dependencies system mean that they have to depend from both claim 1 and 2. Simply joining claim 1 and 2 together does not really improve the situation because the dependent claims would still refer to “A or B”. The problem is that the system highlights that one is trying to appropriate two separate entities of the invention (A and B) without ever defining them as a single entity.
In this respect, a question about unity of invention would arise which any Examiner would ask themselves when they receive an application. There may be a good reason for having the invention defined as two separate entities, but that would depend on the specific facts of the case. From this example, one can see that multiple dependencies according to how they are practiced in the European system lead one to highlight a possible lack of unity in the invention.
The best way to overcome this problem is by defining the invention in a single concept. See Box 2 for an illustration of this, where A and B have been amended by defining them with generic term G. But adding such a concept of G would nearly always be adding subject matter to an invention (if not, why use A and B?). In Europe, at least, such practices are scrutinised very specifically and rarely allowed.
Box 2
US system – 10 claims
European system – 6 claims
  1. A product A.
  2. The product A according to claim 1, wherein A is combined with X.
  3. The product A according to claim 1, wherein A is combined with Y.
  4. The product A according to claim 1, wherein A is A’.
  5. The product A according to claim 4, wherein A’ is combined with Z.
  6. A product B.
  7. The product B according to claim 6, wherein B is combined with X.
  8. The product B according to claim 6, wherein B is combined with Y.
  9. The product B according to claim 6, wherein B is B’.
  10. The product B according to claim 9, wherein B’ is combined with Z.
  1. A product G.
  2. The product G according to claim 1, wherein G is combined with X.
  3. The product G according to claim 1 or 2, wherein G is combined with Y.
  4. The product G according to any of claims 1-3, wherein G is A’.
  5. The product G according to claim 2, wherein G is B’.
  6. The product G according to claim 4 or 5, wherein A’ or B’ is combined with Z.

G is generic term for A and B. Such term often involves addition of subject matter and thus claims where there is added subject matter are highlighted below as bold and underlined
And herein we find the second issue of converting to multiple dependencies - addition of subject matter.
Adding subject matter may make the multiple dependencies very efficient because all the relative features of the dependent claims can be related to each other. This can be seen in Box 3. Please note how different aspects of the invention in Box 3 are claimed in multiple claims which do not exist in the US version, for example (A’ with Y and Z) or (B and X and Y). What is interesting is that this is all done with less number of claims!
Such a conclusion seems desirable. It starts with the necessity to reduce the number of claims to avoid costs, which is always desirable (see Box 1). That transition may highlight a problem regarding unity (which may exist anyway) - the redefining of the invention in a single invention (See Box2).
In attempting to sort that out, one has to often add subject matter. If you are adding subject matter, one might as well then improve one’s position by inserting additional subject matter through more dependencies (see Box 3).
Box 3
US system – 10 claims
European system – 6 claims
  1. A product A.
  2. The product A according to claim 1, wherein A is combined with X.
  3. The product A according to claim 1, wherein A is combined with Y.
  4. The product A according to claim 1, wherein A is A’.
  5. The product A according to claim 4, wherein A’ is combined with Z.
  6. A product B.
  7. The product B according to claim 6, wherein B is combined with X.
  8. The product B according to claim 6, wherein B is combined with Y.
  9. The product B according to claim 6, wherein B is B’.
  10. The product B according to claim 9, wherein B’ is combined with Z.
  1. A product G.
  2. The product G according to claim 1, wherein G is A or B.
  3. The product G according to claim 1 or 2, wherein G is A’ or B’.
  4. The product G according to any of claims 1-3, wherein G is combined with X.
  5. The product G according to any of claims 1-4, wherein G is combined with Y.
  6. The product G according to any of claims 1-5, wherein G is combined with Z.

(all claimed subject matter in bold and underlined is added subject matter)
The point of the above example is to illustrate what one has to consider when one wants to file a patent application from a US-style system to a European system and avoid unnecessary costs. On the one hand, one has to consider redefining one’s invention to avoid unity of invention issues which would be highlighted by a multiple dependency claim system. Such considerations probably involve assessing the invention in light of the prior art. On the other hand, it may mean adding subject matter. This means that consideration of such alternatives being described in the application can only be done at one of two stage – either during the drafting of the priority document (such as in the description/specification) or during the filing of the national application with an amended set of claims. The latter option is less desirable because any intervening disclosure between the priority and the filing may invalidate such claims. Hence, to save costs later on in excess claim fees or obligation to file divisional applications, it is important to plan ahead by taking into consideration claim dependencies for different countries as soon as possible, especially at the priority drafting stage. This is one reason why professional advice in juggling all these different aspects during the claim drafting is advised.

Author:Stefano John, European Patent Attorney
JINN IP, LTD. www.jinnip.com
Experiences:Patent Engineering Division Head, NAIPO
European Patent Attorney, Bryers
Trainee European Patent Attorney, Bugnion SpA
Trainee European Patent Attorney, Notabartolo & Gervasi
Internship, EPO