A.Article 383 paragraph 1 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that “Where one of the grounds of attack or defense presented separately is mature for decision, the court may enter an interlocutory judgment. The same applies to cases where the ground and amount of a claim are both disputed and the court finds the ground just.” And the first paragraph of Article 35 of Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Rules stipulates that “No trial concerning the amount of damage in a civil action over the infringement of an intellectual property right shall be conducted until after the argument on whether the alleged infringement is established or not.” Before adjudicating the damage, the party has deliberated on the issues regarding whether the grounds for revoking the claim 1 of the complainant’s application No. 584161 utility model patent (the Patent No. M227041) exist, whether the improvement of the structure of the door frame exists, and whether the disputed products are in the literal or equivalent scope of the claim 1. After the deliberation, this court determined that the issues mentioned are mature for decision. So according to Article 383 paragraph 1 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure, the interlocutory judgment was entered.

B.The disputed product and claim 1 of the disputed patent achieve the same functions through the same technology ways and yield the same results, so the disputed product is in the equivalent scope of the claim 1. The judgment mentioned above is essential as a premise to determine whether this case constituted infringement, the amount of damage and the scope of excluding infringement. Based on the premise, this court entered the interlocutory judgment

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.

Interlocutory judgment, Assessment of amount of damages