A.Article 106 Paragraph 2 of the Patent Act before amended (2010 version) stipulated that “The scope of a utility model patent shall be determined based on the claim(s) set forth in the specification of the patented utility model. When interpreting the scope of claims, the description and drawings of the utility model patent may be used as reference.” Determining whether the disputed product infringed the patent shall begin from the scope of claims set forth in the specification at first and consider the content of the specification to interpret the terms of claims. But the limitation set forth in the specification shall not be read into the scope of claims. If the specification does not provide specific definitions, the interpretation should be based on ordinary meaning of the terms. Evidences used to interpret the scope of claims include intrinsic evidences and extrinsic evidences. Intrinsic evidences include the claim(s), description of invention (or utility model), drawing and file of prosecution history. File of prosecution history means the documents occurred during patent application and maintenance except for the origin specification. For example, application, supplements, amendments, correction, responses, statements of defense, reasoning or other documents of application, invalidation or administrative relief. Extrinsic evidences mean technique information which has been previously disclosed, such as patents, books, magazines, reports, or products. Intrinsic evidences should be considered before extrinsic evidences when interpreting the claims. Secondly, embodiments or drawings in the specification are simply part of the embodiments of utility model, which shall not be read into claims as limitations when interpreting them. If sufficiently clear, claim constructions shall be based on the ordinary meaning of texts used in the claims as understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art. The term “connector” generally means a component which connects two or more elements and shows connecting appearance of relationship. The term “plurality” means the sum of number that is greater than one, and it could also be understood as at least two (inclusive). Therefore, the context meaning of “connector” of “plurality connectors” set forth in the claim 5 of the disputed patent shall be “the element can connect at least two (inclusive) elements”, and the meaning of “plurality” shall be “at least two (inclusive) connector, not including one.”

B.The Patent Act is formulated to encourage, protect and utilize the creations of invention (or utility model) in order to promote industrial development. An exclusive patent right is applied, examined, and granted to encourage the patentee and to protect its inventions. On the other hand, the grant of patent rights confirms the scope of protection for the invention (utility model) patent, which allows the public to be aware of the content of the invention through the disclosure of the specification and to use the invention (utility model) to create new invention in order to promote industrial development. In order to achieve the above-mentioned legislative purposes, the specification shall fully disclose the invention in a clear and sufficient manner. In addition, claims shall define clearly the technical scope of the invention and be supported by the specification. These are the prerequisite for the legal document that protects patent right. To construct a claim, a court should have a complete understanding of what the creator created and what the claims define so as to meet the principle of equality (balance between the personal interests of the patentee and the public interests) and to achieve the purpose of claim construction. In short, the purpose of claim construction is to interpret the textual meaning of claims correctly and define the scope reasonably. When conducting claim construction, a court shall not only consider the contribution of the patent right compared to prior arts, and to protect the interests of the patentee, but shall also fully consider the public interests. The term “plurality connectors” of the claim 5 (i.e., “the element can connect at least two (inclusive) elements”) clearly excludes a situation where there is only one single connector. Therefore, single connector has been given up by the patentee during the application, and it should not be included in the scope of protection to meet the principle of equality.

C.The scope of patent protection includes literal scope and equivalent scope. The rationale for the equivalent scope is justice, fairness, and balance of interests. The equivalent scope is provided to protect the interests of patentees and expands the literal scope to the scope of substantially the same functions, ways and results. It can prevent others from derogating a patent without changing or replacing substantial technical features set forth in specifications. However, the application of protection of equivalent scope should appropriately balance the patent right of patentee and the public-owned realm which the public can facilitate freely under the premise that the public freedom and reasonable use of prior arts are not restricted. By balancing the public and personal interests, the spirit of justice and fairness of law can be achieved. The patentee of this case has obviously abandoned the “single connector” to the public in the literal meaning of the claim, and it became a prior art. The patent was granted and the scope of the patent announced, which allow the public to know such scope where the practice of the invention is prohibited without the patentee’s permission. If the scope of the patent was expanded and extended to the “single connector” by doctrine of equivalents, it would impair the freedom of the public and the reasonable use of the prior art, i.e., “single connector,” which has previously been abandoned. The doctrine of equivalents is not applicable here because the protection of patent should properly balance the exclusive right of the patentee and the public-owned realm where the public could practice freely. The balance of interests would achieve the spirit of justice and fairness of law.

Claim construction, Doctrine of Equivalents , Equivalent Scope