专利法意义上的公开问题的研究 Research on Disclosure Issues in Patent Law

根据《专利法》22条和23条的规定，授予专利权的发明和实用新型应当不属于现有技术。授予专利权的外观设计，应当不属于现有设计。
According to Articles 22 and 23 of the Patent Law, any invention or utility model for which a patent right may be granted does not form part of the prior art. Any design for which a patent right is to be granted shall not be a prior design.
《专利法》还特别规定本法所称现有技术/现有设计，是指申请日以前在国内外为公众所知的技术/设计。
For the purpose of this Law, "the prior art"/"the prior design" refers to any technology/design known to the public domestically and/or abroad before the filing date of patent application. 
由此可见，专利法意义上的公开问题对于专利权而言是至关重要的，是否构成专利法意义上的公开会直接决定专利的稳定性与否。在实务中，无论是专利无效还是专利诉讼过程中的现有技术抗辩，均要求所提供的证据公开日早于涉案专利的申请日，该份证据才能作为评价涉案专利稳定性的现有技术证据。
It can be seen that the disclosure issue in the context of patent law is crucial to the patent right, and whether it constitutes disclosure in the context of patent law will directly determine the patent stability. In practice, whether it is patent invalidation or prior art defense in patent litigation, the evidence provided shall have a publication date earlier than the filing date of the patent in question, so that it can be used as prior art evidence to evaluate the stability of the patent in question.
本文旨在结合相关法规和判例，从实务的角度对专利法意义上的公开的相关问题进行研究。
This article focuses on the disclosure issues in the context of patent law from a practical perspective with a careful study of relevant regulations and precedents.
1.对于“公开”的定义。
1.Definition of "publication".
首先，对于公开的现有技术/现有设计，应当符合以下两个条件，一是该技术/设计为公众所知，二是为公众所知的时间早于申请日。以下逐一进行探讨。
When technology/design is considered as prior art/design, it shall meet two conditions. First, the technology/design is known to the public, and second, it is known to the public before the filing date. Let's explore these conditions one by one.
1.1.条件一：该技术/设计为公众所知
1.1. Condition 1: The technology/design is known to the public.
对于条件一，可以进一步拆分为“公众”，以及“所知”两个条件。
For condition 1, it can be further divided into two conditions which are "public" and "known".
1.1.1. “公众”
1.1.1. "Public"
专利法上所指的“公众”，一般是指不受特定条件限制、不负有保密义务的不特定的人，至于人的数量和分布的地域范围等因素均不对前述“公众”构成限制，但基于法律规定或合同约定对专利方案负有保密责任的人、根据社会观念或商业习惯对外观设计方案承担默契保密义务的人，则不是专利法意义所指的“公众”。
The term "public" referred to in patent law generally refers to unspecified individuals who are not subject to specific conditions and do not have confidentiality obligations. Factors such as the number of individuals and geographical distribution do not place any limitations on the "public" as defined above. However, individuals who shall be obligated to keep the patent confidential based on legal provisions or contractual agreement, or those who are subject to confidentiality obligations for design based on social norms or business practices, are not considered as the "public" referred to in patent law.
例如，在案例1中，蔡某为了向客户展示产品并接受订单，邀请客户到其生产工厂参观其产品[1]。这里的客户，是否构成专利法意义上的“公众”，需要考量以下情形。
For example, in Case 1, Cai invited his customers to visit the factory to showcase his products and accept orders [1]. Whether these customers can be deemed as the "public" in the context of patent law needs to be considered in the following situations.
首先，蔡某是否对受邀参观的客户提出保密要求？其次，受邀参观的客户，是否为非经蔡某要求无法进入工厂参观产品的特定对象？
First, did Mr. Cai ask the invited clients to keep the visit confidential? Second, were the invited clients not allowed to enter the factory without Mr. Cai's consent?
基于此，若蔡某能够证明受邀参观生产工厂的客户有保密义务并且参观行程安排受其控制，则该批客户属于负有保密义务的特定人，不属于专利法意义上的“公众”。反之，若蔡某不能证明上述主张，即使蔡某在专利申请日前仅邀请少量有限的客户进场参观，也应当认为，其所展示的产品已经处于一种公众想得知即可以得知的状态。蔡某在专利申请日前带领客户到生产工厂参观的行为已经构成专利法意义上的公开。
Given this, if Cai can prove that the customers invited to visit the factory have a confidentiality obligation and the visit schedule is under his control, then these individuals have confidentiality obligations and could not be considered as the "public" in the context of patent law. If he cannot prove the above claim, it should be considered that the products he displayed are in the state of being available to the public, even if Cai invited only a few clients to visit before the filing date. It can be seen as a public disclosure in the context of patent law that Cai led the clients to visit the factory before the filing date.
在明确了专利法意义上的“公众”的基础上，可以进一步明确“为公众所知”的判定。
After clarifying the meaning of "public" in the context of patent law, it is possible to further define the determination of "known to the public".
1.1.2.“所知”
1.1.2. "What is known"
“为公众所知”是指相关设计方案处于“能够为公众获得”的状态，只要相关设计方案处于公众想知即可得知的确定状态，即可认为满足“能够为公众获得”的要求，至于公众是否实际获得、实际知晓则非关注重点。最后，相关设计方案无论通过何种方式对公众公开，所公开的信息均应当包含能够使公众从中得知实质性内容的技术方案或设计方案。
"Known to the public" means that the relevant design plans are in the status of "being available to the public". As long as the relevant design plans are in a definite state that the public can get to know the content whenever they want, it can be considered to meet the requirement of "available to the public". Whether the public actually obtains or knows the plans is not the focus. Finally, no matter how the relevant design plans are made public, the published information should include technical plans or design plans that enable the public to know the substance.
例如，某教授的论文在涉案专利申请日之前就已经陈设于图书馆中，可供公众查阅。即使该论文始终无一人查阅，但是在专利申请日前，该篇论文已经处于“公众想知即可得知的确定状态”，该论文满足专利法意义上的公开条件，构成涉案专利的现有技术。
For example, a professor's paper was already presented in the library before the patent filing date, which can be accessed by the public. Even if no one has ever read the paper, it has already been in the definite state of "being available to the public upon request" before the patent filing date. The paper meets the public disclosure requirement specified in the patent law and constitutes prior art for the involved patent.
又例如，在案例2中，无效宣告请求人通过公证书的形式，证明与涉案专利采用相同方案的产品在专利申请日之前就已经储存在专利权人的工厂仓库中，主张涉案专利方案已经被使用公开[2]。对此，因库房属于一种特定的非公开的区域，该库房处于专利权人的管理和控制之下。库房中所存储的产品，不是公众想接触就能够接触到的，因此，该份公证书尚不能证明库房内存放的产品在进入库房前是否已处于使用公开的状态。该份公证书所公证的内容不能构成专利法意义上的公开。
For example, in Case 2, the applicant for invalidation proves, in the form of notarial certificate, that the product with the same plan as the patent in question has been stored in the patentee's factory warehouse before the patent filing date, and claims that the plan of the patent in question has been used and disclosed [2]. However, because the warehouse is a specific non-public area under the control and management of the patentee, the products stored in the warehouse are not accessible to the public. Therefore, the notarial certificate cannot prove whether the products stored in the warehouse have already been in a state of public use before entering the warehouse. The content notarized in the certificate cannot be considered as public disclosure in the context of patent law.
在案例3中，在先判决认定D公司所生产的被诉侵权产品具有先用权。根据专利法的规定，在专利申请日前已经制造相同产品或者已经作好制造的必要准备，并且仅在原有范围内继续制造、使用的，不视为侵犯专利权。[3]
In Case 3, it was initially adjudicated that the accused infringing products produced by Company D had prior use rights. According to the provisions of the Patent Law, it shall not be regarded as infringing the patent right to manufacture the same product before the patent filing date or make necessary preparations for manufacturing, and continue to manufacture and use the product within the original scope. [3]
基于此，D公司以该份在先判决为证据，主张涉案专利的技术方案以被其使用公开。对此，法院认定：先用权成立的事实和不侵犯专利权的事实均与专利法第二十二条所称的在国内公开使用没有必然联系，仅凭该证据无法证明涉案专利所要求保护的技术方案在本专利申请日之前已经被使用公开[4]。
Company D claims that the technical solution specified in the patent in question is disclosed for its use with the preceding judgment as evidence. In response, the court ruled that the fact of prior use right and the fact of non-infringement of patent rights are not necessarily related to the public use in China as referred to in Article 22 of the Patent Law. Therefore, this evidence alone is not sufficient to prove that the technical solution claimed by the patent in question has been used and discloded before the filing date of the patent application [4].
通过上述案例2和案例3可以明确看到，在讨论专利法上的公开问题时，为了判断技术/设计是否在专利申请日前为公众所知，不能仅仅证明技术方案在涉案专利申请日之前就已经存在，还要证明公众具有获知该方案的可能性，即“公众想得知即可得知”的状态。
It can be clearly seen from the above Case 2 and Case 3 that when discussing the disclosure issue in the context of patent law, in order to determine whether the technology/design is known to the public before the patent filing date, it is not enough to simply prove that the technical solution existed before the patent filing date. It is also necessary to prove that it is possible that the public have access to the patent plan, that is, the state of "being availbale to the public upon request ".
1.2.条件二：为公众所知的时间早于申请日。
Condition 2: The time of disclosure to the public before the filing date.
在确定了技术/设计能够被公众所知的基础上，需要进一步确认其公开日期，即该技术/设计为公众所知的时间。根据专利审查指南[5]的规定，专利法意义上的公开方式可以分为出版物公开、使用公开以及其他公开。在明确不同公开类型的基础上，自然就能够根据该种类型的公开方式确定公开时间。
After confirming that the technology/design can be made known to the public, it is necessary to further confirm the publication date, which is the time when the technology/design becomes known to the public. According to the Patent Examination Guidelines [5], the means of disclosure includes disclosure by publications, disclosure by use, and disclosure by other means. When different types of disclosure are identified, the disclosure time can be determined according to the way of disclosure of that type.
针对上述几种不同类型的公开方式，探讨如下。
Regarding the aforementioned different types of public disclosure, the discussion is as follows.
1.2.1. 出版物公开。
1.2.1. Disclosure by Publications.
专利法意义上的出版物是指记载有技术或设计内容的独立存在的传播载体，并且应当表明或者有其他证据证明其公开发表或出版的时间。
Publications in the context of the Patent Law mean the independently existing disseminating carriers of technical or designing contents, which shall indicate or have other evidence to prove the date of public issue or publication.
除了传统的符合上述含义的出版物，例如各种印刷的、打字的纸件外，随着科技的进步引领人们生产生活方式的改变，存在于互联网或其他在线数据库中的资料，正越来越多地作为现有技术证据出现在各类专利案件中。
In addition to traditional publications that meet the above definition, such as various printed or typed paper documents, with the progress of science and technology leading to changes in people's production and lifestyle, information that exists on the Internet or other online databases is increasingly being used as prior art evidence in various patent cases.
对于几种常见的互联网证据，结合案例分析如下。
For several common types of internet evidence, analysis is provided below with case studies.
1.2.1.1.微信朋友圈。
1.2.1.1. WeChat Moments.
微信朋友圈作为日常生活中常用的社交平台，越来越多的微信用户通过微信朋友圈展示并营销产品。在专利侵权纠纷中，被诉侵权人往往以权利人已在自己的微信朋友圈发布了相关信息为由进行现有技术或现有设计抗辩。
As a commonly used social platform in daily life, WeChat Moments has seen an increasing number of users showcasing and marketing products through it. In patent infringement disputes, the accused infringers often put up a defense on the grounds that the rights holder has already posted relevant information on their WeChat Moments.
对此，由于微信朋友圈的开放对象有互为通讯好友的基本要求，也存在对微信好友和朋友圈访问权限进行设置的功能，微信用户对于其朋友圈发布的内容的分享范围有较强的可操控性。微信朋友圈发布的信息是否构成专利法意义上的公开，需要综合考虑微信朋友圈的特点、个案中微信用户情况以及微信朋友圈发布的内容等要素，以判断该信息是否处于公众想得知即可得知的状态。
As WeChat Moments is open only to the added friends, and the users can set access permissions for WeChat friends and Moments, WeChat users have strong control over the sharing scope of the content they publish on their Moments. Whether the information published on WeChat Moments is considered public disclosure in the context of patent law requires comprehensive consideration of the characteristics of WeChat Moments, the situation of WeChat users in the individual case, and the content published on WeChat Moments, etc., to determine whether the information is in the state of being available to the public upon request.
例如，在案例4中[6]，被诉侵权人未能证实公开专利产品的微信账户将图片发布于朋友圈时接受任何人添加朋友的申请、未阻止任何联系人查看朋友圈且已设置为允许陌生人查看朋友圈。
For example, in case 4 [6], the accused infringer failed to prove that when the product revealing patent information was posted on a WeChat account and shared on Moments, they did not prevent any contacts from viewing Moments but accepted friend requests from anyone and had set Moments to allow strangers to view.
同时，该微信用户的微信朋友圈发布频率不高，其中仅两条涉及产品售卖，其余均为私人生活类的照片内容或感悟分享内容，而涉及产品的朋友圈信息亦无详细的产品介绍、销售联系方式等具体文字内容，同时，相关朋友圈点赞数和评论数较少，关注度极低。综合上述情况，该微信用户将朋友圈专用于商品销售推广的意图并不强烈。
Meanwhile, the WeChat user has a low frequency of posting on their WeChat Moments, with only two posts related to product sales while the rest being personal photos or sharing of personal thoughts. The product-related posts do not provide any details about the products or sales contact. Additionally, these posts have received few likes and comments, indicating a low level of interest from followers. Based on these factors, it can be concluded that the WeChat user does not have a strong intention to use their Moments for product promotion and sales.
结合上述事实，法院认定该证据不足以证明该信息在发布于朋友圈时已处于公众想获知就可以获知的状态，未构成专利法意义上的公开。
Based on the above facts, the court has determined that the evidence is not sufficient to prove that the information was in a publicly accessible state when it was posted on the user's social media account, and therefore is not considered as a public disclosure under patent law.
由此可见，微信朋友圈发布的信息是否构成专利法意义上的公开，需要综合考虑微信朋友圈性质和特点、个案中微信朋友圈的活跃程度、圈子大小、信息发布频率等具体情形以及发布内容是否便于识别技术特征等要素来判断该信息是否处于公众想得知即可得知的状态。需要具体到个案的情况分析，不可一概而论。
It can be seen that whether the information posted on WeChat Moments constitutes a public disclosure in the context of patent law requires a comprehensive consideration of the factors such as the nature and characteristics of WeChat Moments, the activity level, size, and information release frequency of WeChat Moments in specific cases, as well as whether the published content is easy to identify technical features, so as to determine whether the information is in the state of being available to the public whenever they want to know it. It needs to be analyzed specifically according to individual cases and cannot be generalized.
1.2.1.2.QQ空间。
1.2.1.2. Qzone.
在互联网时代，由于QQ空间的广泛性和影响力，作为产品宣传用途的QQ空间的内容发布也是商家常用的一种宣传途径。
In the Internet era, due to the widespread popularity and influence of Qzone, businesses usually promote their products by publishing content on QQ Space.
判断QQ空间图片在发布时是否处于所有人可见的公开状态，应根据QQ空间当前展示的状态、QQ空间所有者的身份、QQ空间所承载的功能等已知事实，结合日常生活经验法则作出推定。如果QQ空间系企业推广产品等对外宣传交流平台的，在未有证据足以反驳的情况下，可推定该QQ空间图片在发布时为所有人可见的公开状态。
To determine whether a Qzone picture is in a public state which is visible to everyone when published, it should be inferred based on the known facts such as current state displayed on the Qzone, the identity of the owner as well as the functions carried by the Qzone and everyday experience rules. If the Qzone is a platform for promoting products or external communication of an enterprise, it can be inferred that the Qzone picture was publicly visible to everyone when published, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
例如，在案例5中[7]，对于QQ空间发布内容的认定思路如下：
For example, in case 5[7], the recognition approach for content posted on Qzone is as follows:
首先，根据QQ空间的使用规则，图片上传至QQ空间后，要使该图片向所有QQ用户公开，必须满足两个条件，即QQ空间权限设置为对“所有人可见”和该图片权限设置为对“所有人可见”。通过公证书显示，公证人员登陆QQ空间后，可在不经好友申请的情况下直接进入QQ空间并查看到比对图片，且该图片及所在文件夹均处于“所有人可见”的状态。据此可以认定，比对图片能够满足前述两个条件，处于向所有QQ用户公开的状态，不特定QQ用户通过常规方式能够获知被诉侵权产品图片。
Firstly, according to the usage rules of Qzone, in order to make an uploaded image visible to all QQ users, two conditions must be met: the Qzone permission is set to "visible to everyone" and the image permission is set to "visible to everyone". According to the notarial certificate, after the notary public logs in to Qzone, they can directly enter the Qzone and view the compared image without applying for friendship, and the image and its folder are both in the "visible to everyone" state. Therefore, it can be determined that the compared image meets the aforementioned two conditions and is in a state of being visible to all QQ users, and that non-specific QQ users can obtain knowledge of the alleged infringing product image through regular means.
其次，该QQ空间的所有人为专利权人的区域经理。再次，该QQ空间包含有多个不同图集，用于展示该公司经营的多种产品。由此可见，该QQ空间的用途主要用作公司宣传和产品的商业推广。根据日常生活经验，经营者在宣传推广产品时，往往希望更大范围的公众获知宣传信息。
Secondly, owner of this Qzone is the patentee’s regional manager. Furthermore, this Qzone contains a number of different albums for showcasing a wide range of products operated by this company. Therefore, this Qzone is mainly used for company publicity and commercial advertising of its products. Based on daily experience, operators often hope to spread promotional information to a wider range of audience when promoting products.
最后，专利权人作为该QQ空间的所有人，在未能提供反证的情况下，被诉侵权人关于“对比图片在发布时已经在QQ空间向所有用户公开”这一待证事实，已达到高度盖然性的法定证明标准。因此，法院支持了该现有设计抗辩的主张。
Finally, as the alleged infringer's unproven fact has achieved the legal standard of proof with high probability that "the comparison image has been publicly released to all users on Qzone at the time of publication", while the patentee, the owner of the Qzone, has failed to provide any counter evidence, the court supports the claim of prior design defense.
因此，关于QQ空间的证据认定，作为产品宣传用途的QQ空间在发布时对所有人可见，即构成专利法意义上“公开发表”和“出版物公开”，属于现有设计抗辩构成中的“为公众所知”。QQ号是否有人得知以及通过何种方式得知不是判断“为公众所知”的条件。
Therefore, regarding the determination of evidence for Qzone, Qzone, which is used for product promotion, is visible to everyone upon publication, thus constituting "public disclosure" and "disclosure by publications" in the context of patent law. It can be considered as "known to the public" in the prior design defense. Whether someone knows about a QQ number and how they come to know about it are not conditions for determining "known to the public".
综上可见，由于微信朋友圈和QQ空间系第三方平台腾讯公司开发，用户上传照片的时间由腾讯公司服务器系统实时记录、自动生成、用户不可修改，且腾讯公司在国内具有一定的知名度和信誉度，因此，该类证据一旦被认定有效公开，相关内容的发布日即可被认定为现有技术的公开日。
In summary, WeChat Moments and QQ Zone are third-party platforms developed by Tencent. The time when users upload photos is recorded and generated in real time by Tencent's server system, and cannot be modified by users. Moreover, Tencent has a certain degree of popularity and credibility in China. Therefore, once such evidence is recognized as valid and made public, the publication date of the relevant content can be deemed as the date of public disclosure of prior technology.
1.2.2. 使用公开。
1.2.2. Disclosure by Use
根据专利审查指南的规定：由于使用而导致技术方案的公开，或者导致技术方案处于公众可以得知的状态，这种公开方式称为使用公开。具体方式可以包括制造、使用、销售、进口、交换、馈赠、演示、展出等。只要通过上述方式使有关技术内容处于公众想得知就能够得知的状态，就构成使用公开，而不取决于是否有公众得知。
Disclosure by use means that by use the technical solution is disclosed or placed in the state of being available to the public. Means of disclosure by use include making, using, selling, importing, exchanging, presenting, demonstrating, exhibiting and the like that can make the technical content available to the public. So long as by the above means the relevant technical content is placed in such a state that the public can know it if they wish, disclosure by use can be established, and it is of no relevance whether the public had actually known it.
使用公开是以公众能够得知该产品或者方法之日为公开日。例如，在前述案例1中，蔡某为了向客户展示产品并接受订单，邀请客户到其生产工厂参观其产品[1]。无效宣告请求人提供的证据能够证明，在2004年10月底之前，蔡某曾向不止一个客户展示其设计的专利产品，在蔡某未提交证据证明受邀参观生产工厂的客户有保密要求并且受其控制的情况下，法院认定：蔡某设计的产品在2004年10月底以前已经处于一种公众可以得知的状态。由此确定了该份使用公开证据的公开日期。
The date on which the product or process is available to the public shall be regarded as the date of disclosure by use. For example, in the aforementioned case 1, Mr. Cai invited customers to his production factory to showcase his products and accept orders [1]. The evidence provided by the invalidation requester shows that Mr. Cai had showcased his patented products to more than one customer before the end of October 2004. Without evidence showing that the customers invited to visit the production factory had duty of confidentiality and were under his control, the court determined that Mr. Cai's designed products had already been made public before the end of October 2004. The public date of the evidence of public use is thus determined.
1.2.3. 其他公开。
1.2.3. Disclosure by other means.
其他方式公开，包括口头交谈、演讲、报告、发言、授课等方式，如果能够使公众得知技术内容，也会使技术成为现有技术。
Other forms of disclosure, including verbal conversations, speeches, reports, presentations, and lectures, can also make technical content publicly known and turn it into existing technology, if they allow the public to learn about the technical content. Disclosure by other means includes talking, speeches, reports, presentations and lectures. The technical content known to the public can become prior art.
需要注意的是，“公开”不意味着“人数众多”，也不意味着必须有大量相关产品对外销售，专利法意义上的公开，仅指技术方案脱离了秘密状态，公众有获知的可能性。列举两个极端的情况：即使发明人只将技术方案告诉一个人，只要此人无保密义务，方案就被公开了；即使许多人都已经知道技术内容，但都负有保密义务，则技术方案仍然处于秘密状态。
It should be noted that disclosure does not mean being made publice to a large number of people, nor does it mean that there must be a large number of related products sold to the public. In the sense of patent law, disclosure only means that the technical solution has left the confidential status and there is possibility that the public can know it. Two extreme cases are listed: even if the inventor only tells one person about the technical solution, as long as this person has no confidentiality obligation, the solution is considered public; even if many people already know the technical content, but they all have confidentiality obligations, the technical solution is still in a confidential state.
上述通过案例的方式，对专利法上公开的定义做了探讨，基于此，进一步讨论专利法的公开在实务过程中的实际应用。
The above case study explored the definition of publication in the context of patent law. Based on this, further discussion will be conducted on the practical application of publication in the context of patent law.
2 专利法意义上的公开在实务上的应用。
2 The application of disclosure in the context of patent law in practice.
根据《专利法》第67条的规定，在专利侵权纠纷中，被控侵权人有证据证明其实施的技术或者设计属于现有技术或者现有设计的，不构成侵犯专利权。也即专利侵权案件诉讼实务中经常用到的“现有技术抗辩”。
According to Article 67 of the Patent Law, in a patent infringement dispute, if the alleged infringer has evidence to prove that the technology or design exploited by it or him forms part of the prior art or prior design, such exploitation shall not constitute an infringement of the patent right. This is commonly referred to as the "prior art defense" in patent infringement litigation practice.
一般而言，“专利侵权中的现有技术抗辩”和“专利权无效宣告请求”这两种案件中，对于专利法意义上的公开这一问题，相关认定标准是一致的。都是为了证明对比文件的公开日早于涉案的专利申请日，从而证明被诉侵权方案属于现有技术方案，或者证明涉案专利不具备新颖性或创造性。为了整体逻辑的一致性，我们这里并不探讨外观设计专利侵权纠纷案件中，申请在前公开在后的境内外申请文件可比照适用现有设计抗辩的特殊案例。
In general, the criteria are consistent for determining the issue of patent disclosure in both “prior art defense in patent infringement cases" and "invalidation request for patent rights". Both are aimed at proving that the public disclosure date of the compared documents is earlier than the filing date of the patent in question, so as to demonstrate that the accused infringement solution forms part of the prior art, or to prove that the patent in question does not have novelty or creativity. In order to maintain logical consistency, we will not explore the special cases where the pre-application design is disclosed after the application in the design patent infringement dispute cases.
需要注意的是，由于专利侵权诉讼和专利权无效宣告请求毕竟是两种不同的程序，在特定情况下，对于公开问题的认定存在差异。
It should be noted that, due to the fact that patent infringement litigation and patent invalidation requests are ultimately two different procedures, there may be differences in the determination of public issues in specific circumstances.
例如，对于一方违反保密协定，导致涉案专利的方案在申请日前被公开的情况。最高法裁判案例的精神指出：“侵害专利权纠纷案件中，被诉侵权人据以主张现有技术抗辩的现有技术系其本人或者其授意的第三人违反明示或者默示的保密义务而公开的技术方案的，人民法院对其基于该技术方案的现有技术抗辩不予支持[8]。”
For example, a party violates the confidentiality agreement, resulting in the solution of the involved patent being made public before the filing date. The Supreme Court's case law indicates: "In patent infringement cases, if the prior art by which the accused infringer defends himself is disclosed by himself or his authorized third party in violation of express or implied confidentiality obligations, the people's court will not support his defense based on the prior art [8]."
然而，审查指南第三章关于新颖性的相关规定却指出：“如果负有保密义务的人违反规定、协议或者默契泄露秘密，导致技术内容公开，使公众能够得知这些技术，这些技术也就构成了现有技术的一部分[5]。”
However, the provisions on novelty in Chapter 3 of Guidelines for Patent Examination state: " If a person having the obligation to keep secret breaches the regulation, agreement, or implicit understanding, rendering the technical contents disclosed and making the technologies available to the public, these technologies shall form part of the prior art. [5]."
对于同样都是违反保密义务导致专利方案被提前公开的情况，司法判决和行政确权的标准似乎存在出入？要理清这一问题，还需要从现有技术抗辩和专利确权这两项制度的立法宗旨出发进行考量。
For cases where the patent scheme is prematurely disclosed due to a breach of confidentiality obligations, there seems to be a discrepancy between the standards of judicial rulings and administrative confirmations. To clarify this issue, it is necessary to consider the prior art defense and patent confirmation systems from the perspective of legislative purposes.
2.1 违反保密义务的公开在现有技术抗辩中的认定思路。
2.1 How to determine disclosure in breach of confidentiality obligations in Prior Art Defnese.
现有技术抗辩制度这一制度的设计，主要是出于以下两方面的考虑：
The prior art defense system is designed mainly based on the following two considerations:
（1）防止社会公众遭受不当授权的专利权人提出的侵权诉讼的侵扰，在无效宣告行政程序之外提供更为便捷的救济措施。对此，不当授权的专利显然不应获得法律保护，社会公众可以自由使用该项技术。
(1)To prevent the harassment of infringement lawsuits filed by patentees with improper authorization and to provide more convenient remedies besides the administrative procedure of invalidation. Improperly authorized patents obviously should not receive legal protection, and the public should be free to use the technology in question.
（2）为善意使用现有技术的社会公众提供一种稳定的合理预期，可以对自身行为进行合理预测和评价。对此，不论被诉侵权产品是否落入涉案专利的保护范围，只要行为人使用的是现有技术，即可以合法使用。
(2) Provide a stable and reasonable expectation for the public who use existing technology in good faith, so that they can reasonably predict and evaluate their own behavior. Regardless of whether the accused infringing product falls within the scope of the patented protection, it can be legally used as long as the person uses existing technology.
因此，一般情况下，只要是属于申请日以前在国内外为公众所知的技术（包括但不限于通过前述的出版物公开、使用公开或其他公开），均可以作为被诉侵权人提出现有技术抗辩的依据。
Therefore, in general, any technology that is known to the public home and abroad before the filing date (including but not limited to being disclosed through publication, use, or other means) can be used as a basis for the defendant to raise the defense of prior art.
但是，民事主体从事民事活动，应当遵循诚信原则，同时不得违反法律和公序良俗，这是民法的基本原则。作为一项民事诉讼中的侵权抗辩事由，现有技术抗辩的行使也应遵循上述民法基本原则，被诉侵权人在有关抗辩事由中应当是善意或者无过错的一方，任何人不能因自身违法或不当行为而获得利益。如果被诉侵权人主张现有技术抗辩的现有技术，系由其本人或者由其授意的第三人违反明示或者默示保密义务而公开的技术方案，则该被诉侵权人不得依据该项现有技术主张现有技术抗辩，否则将使得被诉侵权人因自身违法公开行为而获得利益，明显违反民法基本原则和专利法立法精神。
However, it is a basic principle of civil law that civil subjects should abide by the principle of good faith and not violate laws and public order and customs when engaged in civil activities. As demur incidents in civil action, the exercise of prior art defense should also follow the above-mentioned basic principles of civil law. The alleged infringer shall be in good faith without fault in the relevant defense. No one can benefit from their own illegal or inappropriate behavior. If the prior art by which the alleged infringer defends himself is disclosed by himself or his authorized third party in violation of express or implied confidentiality obligations, the alleged infringer cannot rely on this prior art to defend themselves. Otherwise, it will enable the alleged infringer to benefit from their own illegal behavior of disclosure, which obviously violates the basic principles of civil law and the legislative spirit of patent law.
可见，最高法的上述裁判观点，兼顾了民法基本原则和专利法立法精神，认定了违反保密协议的一方不能因其不诚信行为在专利诉讼中获益。
It is evident that the above-mentioned judicial viewpoint of the Supreme Court takes into account both the basic principles of civil law and the legislative spirit of patent law. It confirms that the party who violates the confidentiality agreement cannot benefit from patent litigation due to their dishonest behavior.
然而，根据审查指南的规定，违反保密义务公开的方案也构成现有技术的一部分。此时，若保密协议的违约方将所公开的方案作为对比文件，向目标专利提起专利权无效宣告请求，最终导致侵权诉讼案件因专利权无效而撤诉，岂不是也实现了在专利诉讼中获益的行为？
However, according to the Guidelines for Patent Examination, schemes that violate confidentiality obligations and are made public also constitute part of the existing technology. In this case, if the breaching party of the confidentiality agreement files an invalidation request against the target patent with the disclosed scheme as a comparative document, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of the patent infringement lawsuit with patent rights invalidated, wouldn't this also be a behavior that benefits from patent litigation?
对此，需要进一步明确专利确权的相关规定。
Regarding this, it is necessary to further clarify the relevant regulations on patent confirmation.
2.2 违反保密义务的公开在专利行政确权中的认定思路。
2.2 How to determine disclosure in breach of confidentiality obligations in Administrative Patent Confirmation.
针对上述情况，《专利法》第24条明确规定：“申请专利的发明创造在申请日以前六个月内，有下列情形之一的，不丧失新颖性：（四）他人未经申请人同意而泄露其内容的。”
Regarding the above situation, Article 24 of the Patent Law clearly stipulates: " Within six months before the filing date, an invention-creation for which a patent application is filed does not lose its novelty under any of the following circumstances: (4) where its contents are divulged by another person without the consent of the applicant. ”
可见，对于违反保密义务导致提前被公开的方案，专利权人可以对此主张不丧失新颖性的宽限期，从而维持专利权的有效。
It can be seen that for schemes that are prematurely disclosed due to violation of confidentiality obligations, the patentee can claim a grace period without loss of novelty, thereby maintaining the validity of the patent right.
通过上述分析可以看到，对于违反保密义务导致专利方案被提前公开的行为，司法判决和行政确权的标准，从结果上来说其实是一致的。其核心思路都是否定评价违反保密约定这种不诚信的行为。只是其具体认定过程，因所在程序的不同而有所差异。
From the above analysis, it can be seen that the standards for judicial judgments and administrative confirmation are consistent in terms of violating confidentiality obligations leading to the early disclosure of patent schemes. The core idea is to deny the evaluation of dishonest behavior that violates confidentiality agreements. The specific identification process differs only because of the differences in the procedures involved.
对于专利侵权的司法程序而言，考虑到民事审判的基本原则，对于违反保密义务的公开直接不予采纳，体现了公平正义的裁判思路。对于专利确权程序而言，由于专利法的立法思路是倾斜保护公共利益，即使是违背保密义务，技术方案的提前公开从客观上也有利于社会的技术进步，但是为了兼顾发明人的利益，向发明人提供了不丧失新颖性的宽限期，该期限为专利申请日前的六个月，这也体现了“权利不用，过期作废”的基本原则。
For judicial procedures related to patent infringement, taking into account the basic principles of civil trial, disclosure due to confidentiality obligations will not be accepted, reflecting the fair and just approach to adjudication. As for the patent confirmation process, due to the legislative approach of the patent law that tilts towards protecting public interests, even if confidentiality obligations are violated, the early disclosure of technical solutions objectively benefits society's technological progress. However, in order to balance the interests of inventors, a grace period that does not compromise novelty is provided to inventors, which is six months before the patent filing date. This also reflects the basic principle of "use it or lose it".
上述从“公开”这个概念的定义出发，结合判例论述了现有技术/现有设计的认定规则，并结合不同的公开类型，讨论了专利法意义上的公开时间问题。在此基础上，结合实务中的特殊情况，论述了公开问题在相关案件过程中的适用。可以看到，对于专利法意义上的公开问题，并不是一个机械适用法条规定的过程，还需要考虑基本的审判原则、相关立法宗旨及法条之间的体系关系等，需要综合考虑评估。
Based on the definition of the concept of "public" and combined with case law, this article discusses the recognition rules for prior art/ design and the issue of public disclosure time in patent law, taking into account different types of disclosure. On this basis, this article also discusses the application of public disclosure issues in relevant cases, with special situations in practice considered. It can be seen that for the issue of public disclosure in patent law, it is not a mechanical process of applying legal provisions. It also requires comprehensive evaluation and consideration of basic principles of adjudication, the legislative purpose, and the system relationship between legal provisions.
附件1：相关法条
Attachment 1: Relevant Laws and Regulations
附件2：参考文件列表
Attachment 2: List of Reference Documents
附件1：相关法条
Attachment 1: Relevant Legal Provisions
中华人民共和国专利法（2020修正）
Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (2020 Revision)
第二十二条 授予专利权的发明和实用新型，应当具备新颖性、创造性和实用性。
Article 22 Any invention or utility model for which a patent right is to be granted shall meet the requirements of novelty, inventiveness and practical use.
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国务院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。
Novelty means that, the invention or utility model does not form part of the prior art; no entity or individual has filed a patent application for the identical invention or utility model with the patent administration department under the State Council before the filing date and the content of the application is disclosed in patent application documents published or patent documents announced after the filing date.
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。
Inventiveness means that, as compared with the prior art, the invention has prominent substantive features and represents an obvious progress, and that the utility model has substantive features and represents a progress. 
实用性，是指该发明或者实用新型能够制造或者使用，并且能够产生积极效果。
Practical use means that, the invention or utility model can be manufactured or used and can produce positive results. 
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。
For the purpose of this Law, "the prior art" refers to any technology known to the public domestically and/or abroad before the filing date of patent application. 
第二十三条 授予专利权的外观设计，应当不属于现有设计；也没有任何单位或者个人就同样的外观设计在申请日以前向国务院专利行政部门提出过申请，并记载在申请日以后公告的专利文件中。
Article 23 Any design for which a patent right is to be granted shall not be a prior design; no entity or individual has filed a patent application for the identical design with the patent administration department under the State Council before the filing date and the content of the application is disclosed in patent documents announced after the filing date. 
授予专利权的外观设计与现有设计或者现有设计特征的组合相比，应当具有明显区别。
Any design for which a patent right may be granted shall significantly differ from a prior design or the combination of prior design features.
授予专利权的外观设计不得与他人在申请日以前已经取得的合法权利相冲突。
Any design for which a patent right is granted must not conflict with the lawful rights acquired by any other person before the filing date. 
本法所称现有设计，是指申请日以前在国内外为公众所知的设计。
For the purpose of this Law, "a prior design" refers to any design known to the public domestically and/or abroad before the filing date. 
第二十四条 申请专利的发明创造在申请日以前六个月内，有下列情形之一的，不丧失新颖性：
Article 24 Within six months before the filing date, an invention-creation for which a patent application is filed does not lose its novelty under any of the following circumstances: 
（一）在国家出现紧急状态或者非常情况时，为公共利益目的首次公开的；
(1) where it was made public for the first time for the purpose of the public interests when a state of emergency or an extraordinary situation occurred in the country;
（二）在中国政府主办或者承认的国际展览会上首次展出的；
(2) where it was exhibited for the first time at an international exhibition sponsored or recognized by the Chinese Government; 
（三）在规定的学术会议或者技术会议上首次发表的；
(3) where it was published for the first time at a prescribed academic or technological conference;
（四）他人未经申请人同意而泄露其内容的。
(IV) where its contents are divulged by another person without the consent of the applicant. 
第六十七条 在专利侵
权纠纷中，被控侵权人有证据证明其实施的技术或者设计属于现有技术或者现有设计的，不构成侵犯专利权。
Article 67 In a patent infringement dispute, if the alleged infringer has evidence to prove that the technology or design exploited by it or him forms part of the prior art or prior design, such exploitation shall not constitute an infringement of the patent right. 
第七十五条 有下列情形之一的，不视为侵犯专利权：
Article 75 None of the following shall be deemed as infringement of the patent right: 
（一）专利产品或者依照专利方法直接获得的产品，由专利权人或者经其许可的单位、个人售出后，使用、许诺销售、销售、进口该产品的；
(1) where, after the sale of a patented product or a product acquired directly in accordance with a patented process by the patentee or any entity or individual authorized by the patentee, any other person uses, offers to sell, sells, or imports that product; 
（二）在专利申请日前已经制造相同产品、使用相同方法或者已经作好制造、使用的必要准备，并且仅在原有范围内继续制造、使用的；
(2) where, before the filing date of the patent application, any person who has already manufactured the identical product, used the identical process, or made necessary preparations for its manufacturing or using, continues to manufacture or use it only within the original scope; 
（三）临时通过中国领陆、领水、领空的外国运输工具，依照其所属国同中国签订的协议或者共同参加的国际条约，或者依照互惠原则，为运输工具自身需要而在其装置和设备中使用有关专利的；
(3) where any foreign means of transport, which temporarily passes through the territory, territorial waters or territorial airspace of China, uses the relevant patent in its devices or installations for its own needs in accordance with the agreements concluded between the country to which the foreign means of transport belongs and China, or in accordance with the international treaties to which both countries are parties, or on the basis of the principle of reciprocity; 
（四）专为科学研究和实验而使用有关专利的；
(4)
where the relevant patent is used specially for the purposes of scientific research and experimentation;
（五）为提供行政审批所需要的信息，制造、使用、进口专利药品或者专利医疗器械的，以及专门为其制造、进口专利药品或者专利医疗器械的。
(5)where for the purposes of providing information needed for the administrative examination and approval, any person manufactures, uses, or imports patented drugs or patented medical apparatus and instruments, or any other person manufactures or imports patented drugs or patented medical apparatus and instruments especially for that person. 
附件2：参考文件列表
Attachment 2: List of reference documents
[1]（2009）一中行初字第1660号判决书，北京市第一中级人民法院。
[1]Judgment No. 1660 of the First Instance of the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court in 2009. (2009) Yi Zhong Xing Chu Zi Judgment No. 1660, Beijing First Intermediate People's Court.
[2]（2006）一中行初字第1338号判决书，北京市第一中级人民法院。
2 Yi Zhong Xing Chu Zi Judgment No. 1338, Beijing First Intermediate People's Court.
[3]（2006）粤高法民三终字第399号判决书，广东省高级人民法院.
3 Yue Gao Fa Min San Zhong Zi Judgment No. 399, Guangdong Higher People's Court.
[4]（2011）一中知行初字第2384号判决书，北京市第一中级人民法院。
4 Yi Zhong Zhi Xing Chu Zi Judgment No. 2384, Beijing First Intermediate People's Court.
[5]专利审查指南（2021），中华人民共和国知识产权局。
[5]Examination Guidelines for Patents (2021), State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China.
[6]（2020）渝民终1059号判决书，重庆市高级人民法院。
6 Yu min zhong Judgment No. 1059, Chongqing High People's Court.
[7]（2018）粤民终2499号判决书，广东省高级人民法院。
7 Yue Min Zhong Judgment No. 2499, Guangdong Higher People's Court.
[8]（2020）最高法知民终1568号判决书，最高人民法院。
8Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong Judgment No. 1568, Supreme People's Court.