專利貢獻度對損害賠償界定之影響──兼評最高法院106年度台上字第2467號判決

最高法院106年度台上字第2467號判決指摘二審法院計算專利侵權損害賠償，漏未審酌貢獻度。最高法院略論及貢獻度的定義，惟未諭示判斷貢獻度的法律標準。美國Federal Circuit諸多判決就貢獻度之定義及判斷標準，提供完整法理基礎。智慧財產法院若干見解，例如100年度民專上更（一）字第6號判決及104年度民專訴字第36號判決，其判斷標準頗近於美國法院，殊值贊同。本文比較臺、美法院就貢獻度之法理基礎及適用標準，盼有助於專利侵權損害賠償之計算。<br />

Idenix v. Gilead: The enablement and written description limits of a genus claim

In Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Sci. Inc., 941 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of invalidity of a patent claiming methods for treating Hepatitis C virus for, inter alia, lack of enablement. The Supreme Court denied Idenix’s petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning that the Federal Circuit decision stands, and genus claims covering thousands of compounds that were supported by an insufficient number of examples have failed the enablement test not once, but twice. See Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 720 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013). This case report presents the context surrounding the Federal Circuit’s Idenix decision and the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case.