智慧財產局參加智慧財產訴訟之研究

A Study on the Intervention of the Intellectual Property Office in Intellectual Property Lawsuits

江合貴(Ho-Kuei Chiang)

指導教授 ： 謝銘洋

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.00518

摘要

智慧財產案件審理法第17條規定指出，法院在判斷智慧財產權有效性爭議時，得命智慧財產局參加訴訟，智慧財產局參加之目的與我國法上既有之訴訟參加制度不同，實務上，關於有效性爭議，民事法院命智慧財產局參加訴訟的機會不高，即使參加訴訟，智慧財產局通常不對本案表達實質意見，此種情況並不符合立法說明中「表示專業意見」之期待，其原因在於對智慧財產局進入訴訟之定位不明所導致，區分智慧財產局係「參加地位」或「諮詢地位」有其重要性，因為兩者不得並存，本論文比較兩者之要件、權限與效力，分析利弊得失後，提出對智慧財產局參加訴訟制度之立法建議。
「參加地位」係包括既有的訴訟參加制度，如民事訴訟上之輔助參加、共同訴訟參加、主參加訴訟，以及行政訴訟法參加和家事事件法參加，其特徵在於「第三人利益涉入本案的程度，影響其進入訴訟後的權限與效果」而根據學者見解，訴訟參加可成為第三人程序保障機制，其為判決效力擴大之基礎，藉以達成紛爭一次解決之目的。
「諮詢地位」之設計與符合外國法上之「專家證人」(Expert Witness)及「法庭之友」(Amicus Curiae)，智慧財產局作為諮詢地位其優點在於「僅單純表達意見，不受判決效力拘束」。
綜上所述，智慧財產局若係參加地位，其優點是可成為紛爭一次解決的機制，但是智慧財產局並無受當事人訴訟影響之利益，不符合參加地位之特徵；若將智慧財產局定位在諮詢地位，以其專業意見供法院參考，促進法院對有效性爭點之掌握，並有整合法院與智慧財產局有效性判斷基準之功能，係為其優點，但是「專家證人」與「法庭之友」為我國民事訴訟法所未規定，基於上述理由，本論文認為，立法者應審慎評估智慧財產局進入民事訴訟之必要性。

關鍵字

智慧財產案件審理法 ； 智慧財產局參加訴訟 ； 參加地位 ； 爭點效 ； 程序保障 ； 紛爭一次解決 ； 諮詢地位 ； 專家證人 ； 法院之友 ； 智慧財產權有效性

並列摘要

Article 17 of Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act provides that the court may order the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to intervene in a lawsuit while determining the validity of intellectual property rights (IPR). The intervention design and its purpose are quite different from those design and purpose of the other laws in Taiwan. In judicial practice, civil court seldom ordered the IPO to intervene IPR validity in a lawsuit. Even if the IPO was ordered to intervene in some lawsuit, the IPO would not comment IPR validity based on the specific case. This situation doesn't satisfy legislator's expectation,—“leveraging the IPO expertise to judge IPR validity". This is resulted from the ambiguous definition of the IPO’s intervention position by law. Whether the IPO should enter a lawsuit taking a “Intervention Position ", or “Consultation Position" will be crucial since these two position are mutual exclusive. This thesis will compare the factors, competences and legal effects of these two positions, conclude their pros and cons and make a suggestion to legislators for the IPO intervention provision.
"Intervention Position" design would be similar to existing intervention system in Taiwan, such as support intervention, independent intervention, intervening action, administrative litigation intervention and domestic proceedings intervention. The essence is that how much interest of third parties involved in the case will influence its competence and legal effects of intervention. According to scholars’ research, intervention position might enhance the third party procedure protection mechanism and create a basis to extend the judgment effects, in order to solve the disputes in one litigation
“Consultation Position” design would be a match for the “expert witness” and “amicus curiae” in the foreign law systems. The merit is that the IPO would not be bound by the judgment since their opinion is taken as reference.
In conclusion, on one hand, if the IPO would be on intervention position, it could be a part of mechanism to solve the disputes in one litigation. However, the IPO has no interest involving litigant's lawsuits, the IPO intervention doesn’t conform to intervention position. On the other hand, if the IPO would be on consultation position, it could supply expert opinion to the court, help the court make the correct judgments and integrate court and IPO IPR validity determination reference. However, Taiwanese Code of Civil Procedure doesn't provide such IPO position. Due to the above restrictions, the IPO’s necessity to enter civil lawsuits should be carefully assessed by legislator.

並列關鍵字

Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act ； Intervention of the Intellectual Property Office ； Intervention Position ； Issue Preclusion ； Procedural Protection ； Solve the Disputes in One Litigation ； Consultation Position ； Expert Witness ； Amicus Curiae ； Intellectual Property Rights Invalidity Determination

參考文獻

1.最高法院23年上字第3618號民事判例。

16.最高法院103年度台上字第2110號民事判決。

11.姜世明(2009)，〈合意選任鑑定人與仲裁鑑定契約-評最高法院97年度台上字第112號民事判決〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第169期。

3.最高法院38年台上字第265號民事判例。

5.最高法院73年台上字第595號民事判例。