Product by Process Claim의 특허성 판단과 관련하여서는 청구항에 기재된 제조방법에 한정하지 않고 물건 자체로 인정하여 심사한다는 점에 대해 세계 각국은 공통된 입장을 견지하고 있으나, 특허침해 판단과 관련해서는 통일된 입장을 보이지 않고 있다. 이러한 때 미국 CAFC가 Product by Process Claim의 특허침해 판단과 관련하여 상반된 입장의 Scripps 판결과 Atlantic 판결을 연속하여 하게 되어 더욱 혼란을 가중시켰다. 그래서 본고에서는 Atlantic 판결을 중심으로 Product by Process Claim의 특허침해 판단과 관련된 법적 문제를 다음과 같이 해명해 보았다. Atlantic 판결에서 특허침해 판단에서 Product by Process Claim은 이에 기재된 방법에 한정되는 것으로 해석한 것은, 특허제도의 기본원리에 부합함과 동시에 특허법 운용의 형평성을 도모하여 현재의 특허침해 해석 경향 및 특허법의 충실한 해석에 일치하므로 타당하다고 할 수 있다. 다만, 이러한 해석은 원칙론에서 타당하다는 것이지 그 예외를 부정하는 것은 아니다. 또한 Atlantic 판결은 특허침해 판단에서 Product by Process Claim은 이에 기재된 방법에 한정되지 않는다고 해석한 Scripps 판결과의 모순되는 문제에 대해서, Atlantic 판결에서 Product by Process Claim의 해석은 이상에서 언급한 바와 같이 원칙론에서 타당하다는 것이지 그 예외를 부정하는 것이 아니므로, 물건에 실질적인 특징이 있으나 구조, 형상 또는 성질 등으로 표현하기 어려워 할 수 없이 방법으로 발명을 표현한 경우 등 특단의 사정이 있는 경우에는 Product by Process Claim은 이에 기재된 방법에 한정되지 않고 특허침해를 판단할 수 있으므로 Scripps 판결이 잘못 판단하였거나 Atlantic 판결과 모순되는 것은 아니다. 마지막으로 통상적으로 특허성 판단단계에서는 Product by Process Claim은 이에 기재된 방법에 한정되지 않고 물건을 기준으로 판단하면서, 특허침해 판단단계에서는 이에 기재된 방법에 한정되어 판단한다면 상호 모순된다고 볼 수 있지만, 특허성 판단과 특허침해 판단은 그 목적과 역할이 다르고 이에 따라 해석원리를 달리하기 때문에 Product by Process Claim의 특허성 판단과 특허침해 판단에서의 해석상 차이가 발생하여 양자간 청구항의 광협이 생기더라도 문제될 것이 없고, 오히려 특허법의 기본원리에 맞게 충실하게 해석한 것이라 할 수 있다.

A Product by Process Claim is a claim that defines a product by reference to the process by which it is made. In determination of patentability in almost every countries, a Product by Process Claim should be treated like a Product claim so that Product by a Process Claim is not patentable if there is any prior art that shows a identical product to the Claim. However, in determination of infringement, the opinions are seriously divided into two. The one is that a Product by Process Claim is not limited to product prepared by the process set forth in the claim. The other is that process terms in a Product by Process claim serve as limitations in determining infringement. In Atlantic Case, CAFC acknowledged that process term in Product by Process Claims serve as limitations in determining infringement. I agree with that opinion as a principle because Product by Process Claims disclose less technology to the public than original Product Claims do. And the interpretation of Product by Process Claims in Atlantic Case is not contradictory to CAFC's judgement in Scripps Case occurred before Atlantic Case and which ignored the process limitations in its Product by Process Claims. That is because the interpretation standard of Product by Process Claims in Atlantic Case is one of principles not imperative standard in interpreting the Claims. Thus Product by Process Claims can be interpreted like Product Claims when the product in Product by Process Claims could not be described by structural term. Even though Product by Process Claims were limited by and defined by the process in Atlantic Case, determination of patentability, as having different purposes from determination of infringement, can be based on the product itself.

A Product by Process Claim is a claim that defines a product by reference to the process by which it is made. In determination of patentability in almost every countries, a Product by Process Claim should be treated like a Product claim so that Product by a Process Claim is not patentable if there is any prior art that shows a identical product to the Claim. However, in determination of infringement, the opinions are seriously divided into two. The one is that a Product by Process Claim is not limited to product prepared by the process set forth in the claim. The other is that process terms in a Product by Process claim serve as limitations in determining infringement. In Atlantic Case, CAFC acknowledged that process term in Product by Process Claims serve as limitations in determining infringement. I agree with that opinion as a principle because Product by Process Claims disclose less technology to the public than original Product Claims do. And the interpretation of Product by Process Claims in Atlantic Case is not contradictory to CAFC's judgement in Scripps Case occurred before Atlantic Case and which ignored the process limitations in its Product by Process Claims. That is because the interpretation standard of Product by Process Claims in Atlantic Case is one of principles not imperative standard in interpreting the Claims. Thus Product by Process Claims can be interpreted like Product Claims when the product in Product by Process Claims could not be described by structural term. Even though Product by Process Claims were limited by and defined by the process in Atlantic Case, determination of patentability, as having different purposes from determination of infringement, can be based on the product itself.

, , , , , ,

Atlantic, Scripps, claim, specialized claims, interpretation, Product by Process Claim