從英國專利判例看歐洲專利局與美國專利商標局對於通常知識者的差別 -- U.K. Court of Appeal Aligns U.K. Sufficiency Standard with European Patent Office Standard and Sharpens Contrast with U.S. Practice

新聞原文:

U.K. Court of Appeal Aligns U.K. Sufficiency Standard with European Patent Office Standard and Sharpens Contrast with U.S. Practice

在這個 Regeneron v Kymab & Novo Nordisk判例中，英國上訴法院，採用EPO審查基準中通常知識者對於專利文件中的揭露水準，來判定Regeneron 所擁有的EP 1360287 與 EP 2264163專利中的第三個實施例未充分揭露，無法據以實施。

原文中對於歐洲專利局以及美國專利商標局對於「通常知識者」的定義中有基本的說明。兩者略有差異，要點在通常知識者是否具有創造力的差別，參考如下。

The “skilled person” under European law is a capable person with typical knowledge in the relevant field, but exercises no creativity. That skilled person will follow the instructions given in the disclosure and supplement that information only with information that is, without question, commonly known and immediately apparent to the skilled person. 

Under U.S. patent law, the person of ordinary skill is a capable person with typical knowledge in the relevant field and the typical creativity for a person in that field.

These differences in the characteristics of the skilled person (or person of ordinary skill in the art) can lead to instances where a patent application that meets the enablement requirement under the law of one jurisdiction fails to meet the requirement in another jurisdiction.

說明書充分揭露的澳洲觀點 -- IP Australia Viewpoint on Sufficiency of Specification

取材自 Australian Patent Office considers plausibility in a test for sufficiency

這篇文章雖然在討論澳洲智慧財產局的專利審查基準。不過在文章內，說明英國以及歐洲對所請發明在說明書中的揭露要件的兩階段測試法。

澳洲專利局的上訴委員會在 Evolva SA [2017] APO 57 (Evolva) 的判例中，訂出所請發明相對應說明書的揭露必須通過兩階段的測試：

1. 在請求項的所有權利範圍內，所請發明是可以作動，讓技術領域具有通常知識者能據以實施。

 i) Is it plausible that the invention can be worked across the full scope of the claim?

2.在請求項的所有權利範圍內，所請發明是可以被實現，技術領域具有通常知識者不必有超過太多的負擔。

ii) Can the invention be performed across the full scope of the claim without undue burden?