不同国家“抵触申请”制度解读

作者：韩冬 专利工程师

新颖性和创造性是判断一件专利申请能否获得授权的重要指标之一。

根据《中国专利法》第22条第2款的规定，新颖性，是指该发明或者实用新型不属于现有技术；也没有任何单位或者个人就同样的发明或者实用新型在申请日以前向国务院专利行政部门提出过申请，并记载在申请日以后公布的专利申请文件或者公告的专利文件中。

根据《中国专利审查指南》第二部分第三章第2.2节的规定，在发明或者实用新型新颖性的判断中，由任何单位或者个人就同样的发明或者实用新型在申请日以前向专利局提出并且在申请日以后（含申请日）公布的专利申请文件或者公告的专利文件损害该申请日提出的专利申请的新颖性。为描述简便，在判断新颖性时，将这种损害新颖性的专利申请，称为抵触申请。

可见，在中国，抵触申请仅可以用于评价新颖性，而不能用于评价创造性。而且，抵触申请是指在中国专利局提出的申请在前、公布在后的专利申请，且包括申请日以前由任何单位或者个人提出、并在申请日之后（含申请日）由专利局作出公布或公告的且为同样的发明或者实用新型的国际专利申请，但不包含在申请日提出的同样的发明或者实用新型专利申请。

那么，其他国家是否也存在与中国类似的抵触申请的概念或者类似的概念，在其他国家，抵触申请的适用情况又如何，笔者带着这样的疑问查阅了欧洲、美国、印度等几个国家的相关法条，并总结如下。

1、欧洲

《欧洲专利公约》第54条对新颖性进行了规定，其中第2、3款如下：

(2) The state of the art shall be held to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application.

(3)Additionally, the content of European patent applications as filed, the dates of filing of which are prior to the date referred to in paragraph 2 and which were published on or after that date, shall be considered as comprised in the state of the art.

也就是说，在欧洲，现有技术应包括：在欧洲专利申请的申请日之前，通过书面表述或口头表述、使用或者任何其他方式为公众所获知的任何事物。此外，现有技术应包括：提交的欧洲专利申请内容，其申请日在第2款所指日期之前、并在该日期或该日期之后公布（即，抵触申请）。

此外，在《欧洲专利公约》第56条创造性相关的条款中还明确规定了：

An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. If the state of the art also includes documents within the meaning of Article 54, paragraph 3, these documents shall not be considered in deciding whether there has been an inventive step.

即，《欧洲专利公约》第54条第3款所涉及的抵触申请在判断创造性时不予考虑。

因此，尽管在欧洲抵触申请属于现有技术，但与中国类似，抵触申请仅可以用于评价新颖性，而不能评价创造性。

另外，欧洲抵触申请与中国还有一点类似之处在于，该抵触申请必须是本国的专利申请，或者是进入欧洲地区阶段的PCT申请。

2、美国

在《莱希-史密斯美国发明法案》（“AIA”）中，实际上并不存在明确的抵触申请制度，但其第102条(a)款第2项中的例外规定包括了类似中国的“抵触申请”的情况。

Section 102 (a) Novelty; Prior Art-A person shall be entitled to a patent unless

(1)…

(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

美国的现有技术中包括了在申请日以前另一发明人的授权或者公开的专利申请或授权专利，该专利申请或授权专利包括美国专利、已公开的美国专利申请、以及已公开的指定进入美国国家阶段的PCT申请。这里，指定进入美国国家阶段的PCT申请可以是向美国专利局以外的专利局提交的PCT申请（以英文公开）。

另外，AIA第103条还规定了：

A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.

可见，AIA第102条(a)款所规定的类似抵触申请的现有技术不仅能用于评价新颖性，还能用于评价创造性。

3、印度

印度《专利法》第13条对现有技术以及prior claim issue（类似抵触申请）进行了规定。

13. Search for anticipation by previous publication and by prior claim.— (1) The examiner to whom an application for a patent is referred under section 12 shall make investigation for the purpose of ascertaining whether the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification—

(a) has been anticipated by publication before the date of filing of the applicant's complete specification in any specification filed in pursuance of an application for a patent made in India and dated on or after the 1st day of January, 1912;

(b) is claimed in any claim of any other complete specification published on or after the date of filing of the applicant's complete specification, being a specification filed in pursuance of an application for a patent made in India and dated before or claiming the priority date earlier than that date.

(2) The examiner shall, in addition, make such investigation for the purpose of ascertaining whether the invention, so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification, has been anticipated by publication in India or elsewhere in any document other than those mentioned in sub-section (1) before the date of filing of the applicant's complete specification.

可见，在印度，现有技术的公开日必须早于本申请的申请日。而对于申请日在先、公布在后的印度申请（或具有申请日在先、公布在后的印度同族的专利申请），其虽不属于印度专利法中规定的现有技术，但属于印度专利的prior claiming issue。

答复印度专利的prior claiming issue与创造性的答复类似，因此可以看作印度专利法中规定的“抵触申请”不仅可以用于评价新颖性，也可以用于评价创造性。

4、澳大利亚

澳大利亚《专利法》的附表1中规定了现有技术基础（prior art base），其中包括类似抵触申请的概念：

Schedule 1 Dictionary

prior art base means:

(a) in relation to deciding whether an invention does or does not involve an inventive step or an innovative step:

(i) information in a document that is publicly available, whether in or out of the patent area; and

(ii) information made publicly available through doing an act, whether in or out of the patent area.

(b) in relation to deciding whether an invention is or is not novel:

(i) information of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a); and

(ii) information contained in a published specification filed in respect of a complete application where:

(A) if the information is, or were to be, the subject of a claim of the specification, the claim has, or would have, a priority date earlier than that of the claim under consideration; and

(B) the specification was published on or after the priority date of the claim under consideration; and

(C) the information was contained in the specification on its filing date.

可见，澳大利亚专利法的附表1中规定了申请在前公开在后的专利申请（类似抵触申请）仅可以用于评价新颖性，澳大利亚专利法中规定的“抵触申请”不仅限于澳大利亚专利。

5、加拿大

加拿大《专利法》第28.2条未披露的主题（类似新颖性条款）中涉及到抵触申请：

28.2 Subject-matter of claim must not be previously disclosed

(a)…

(b)…

(c) in an application for a patent that is filed in Canada by a person other than the applicant, and has a filing date that is before the claim date; or

(d) in an application (the "co-pending application") for a patent that is filed in Canada by a person other than the applicant and has a filing date that is on or after the claim date if 

(i) the co-pending application is filed by

(A) a person who has, or whose agent, legal representative or predecessor in title has, previously regularly filed in or for Canada an application for a patent disclosing the subject-matter defined by the claim, or

(B) a person who is entitled to protection under the terms of any treaty or convention relating to patents to which Canada is a party and who has, or whose agent, legal representative or predecessor in title has previously regularly filed in or for any other country that by treaty convention or law affords similar protection to citizens of Canada an application for a patent disclosing the subject-matter defined by the claim,

(ii) the filing date of the previously regularly filed application is before the claim date of the pending application,

(iii) the filing date of the co-pending application is within twelve months after the filing date of the previously regularly filed application, and

(iv) the applicant has, in respect of the co-pending application, made a request for priority on the basis of the previously regularly filed application.

可见，加拿大专利法第28.2条中规定了本案申请人之外的申请人提出的1）申请在前的加拿大申请，或者，2）申请日不早于本案申请日但具有申请日在前的在先申请的加拿大专利（"co-pending application"）可以用于评价新颖性（类似抵触申请）。其中，加拿大专利法中对"co-pending application"的申请人有详细规定（见上述28.2(d)(i)(A)(B)）

28.3（非显而易见）规定了：

28.3 Invention must not be obvious

The subject-matter defined by a claim in an application for a patent in Canada must be subject-matter that would not have been obvious on the claim date to a person skilled in the art or science to which it pertains, having regard to

(a) information disclosed more than one year before the filing date by the applicant, or by a person who obtained knowledge, directly or indirectly from the applicant in such a manner that the information became available to the public in Canada or elsewhere; and

(b) information disclosed before the claim date by a person not mentioned in paragraph (a) in such a manner that the information became available to the public in Canada or elsewhere. 

可见，第28.3条的非显而易见（类似创造性条款）中没有涉及“抵触申请”，因此，加拿大专利的“抵触申请”仅可用于评价新颖性。

6、印度尼西亚

与美国类似，但是并没有限制抵触申请的申请国家。

以下是笔者为了便于理解总结出的各国抵触申请相关表格供读者参考。

国家/地区	抵触申请是否影响创造性	申请人和/或发明人是否可以相同	非本国申请或非PCT国家阶段是否可以构成抵触申请
中国	否	是	否
欧洲	否	是	否
美国	是	否	是 只要PCT使用英文公布且指定美国，未进入美国国家阶段也构成
印度	是	是	是 只要有申请日在先或优先权日在先的印度同族
澳大利亚	否	是	是
加拿大	否	否	否
印尼	是	是	是

 在实际作业中，笔者还遇到过例如印度案或者加拿大案的审查员在实审过程中直接引用其同族美国案的对比文件来反驳新创性的情况，在这种情况下，由于美国与其他各国关于抵触申请存在很大不同，故我们需要首先判断该对比文件在美国之外的其他国家是否也适格。

以上仅是笔者在工作中总结的一些不同国家有关抵触申请的相关规定，欢迎批评指正。