中美欧抵触专利申请的异同

我国

专利法第22条第2款：

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。

专利法第22条第3款：

创造性，是指与现有技术相比，该发明具有突出的实质性特点和显著的进步，该实用新型具有实质性特点和进步。

专利法第22条第5款：

本法所称现有技术，是指申请日以前在国内外为公众所知的技术。

审查指南第二部分第三章第2.2节：

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。

抵触申请还包括满足以下条件的进入了国阶段的国际专利申请，即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。

抵触申请仅指在申请日以前提出的，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

小结：

（1）抵触申请是指同样的发明在先申请（不含申请日当日），但在后（含申请日当日）公开；

（2）抵触申请可由任何单位和个人提出，即包括本人提交的申请；

（3）这个在先申请仅限向我国专利局提交的申请（包括PCT进入我国阶段的申请）；

（4）抵触申请只评价新颖性，不用于创造性的评价。

欧洲

EPC Article 54 Novelty：

(1) An invention shall be considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art.

(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.

Article 56 Inventive step：

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.

小结：

（1）在申请日之前为公众所知的均为现有技术；

（2）在先申请-在后（含申请日当日）公开的欧洲专利申请，也属于现有技术，会影响新颖性；

（3）54(3)没有对抵触申请的申请人作出界定，默认可以是任何单位或个人；

（4）现有技术中的“在先申请在后公开”不能用于评价创造性。

美国 (AIA后)

35 U.S.C. 102 (a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless:

(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or

(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.

35 U.S.C. 103 non-obvious subject matter

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 inventionto 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.

35 U.S.C. 374 Publication of international application

The publication under the treaty defined in section 351(a), of an international application designating the United States shall be deemed a publication under section 122(b), except as provided in section 154(d).

美国其实没有明确的抵触申请的概念，通过以上法条可以看出：

（1）只要在本申请的申请日前申请，且有不同的发明人，就属于现有技术，可用于该申请的新颖性评价；（没有对在先申请的公开日作出界定，默认可以是任何公开日）

（2）只要是在申请日前的现有技术，也可用于创造性的评价。

（3）现有技术不要求必须为美国专利申请，指定了美国的PCT申请即使没有进入美国阶段，也可以算现有技术。

来源：一座城堡 免责声明：版权归原创所有仅供学习参考之用，禁止用于商业用途，部分文章推送时未能及时与原作者取得联系，若来源标错误侵犯到您的权益烦请告知我们将立即删除。