專利權侵害救濟及專利權標示

Relief for Patent Infringement and Patent Marking

游雅晴(Ya-ChingYu)

《華人經濟研究》 7卷1期 (2009/03) Pp. 104-114

https://doi.org/10.30065/JCER.200903.0006

摘要

專利法授與專利權人在法定保護期間內，除法律另有規定外，享有專有排除他人未經其同意而製造、為販賣之要約、販賣、使用或為上述目的而進口該物品之雄，故專利權遭受侵害時，國家亦就其救濟方式子已明定於專利法中。
本文首先就現行〈專利法〉第八十四條規定之「排除侵害或防止侵害請求權」、「損害賠償請求權」以及「回復名譽請求權」加以說明，並簡要分析損害賠償請求權之構成要件。
次就現行《專利法》第七十九條規定之專利權標示制度，其立法治革加以說明，專利權標示制度之性質在立法例上可以分為訓示規定、專屬專利權人之權利或專屬專利權人之義務等，而顯然認為專利權人標示專利證書號數系屬一種義務。但是，我國專利訴訟實務中，對於怠於為專利權標示之法律效果上，卻出現明顯之分歧，究竟是侵權行為人行使專利侵權損害賠償請求權之前提或特別要件，或為侵權行為人是否具有故意或過失之主觀要件之重要攻擊防禦方法。
針對該歧異之處，智慧財產局於今年五月二十六日公佈「專利法修正草案」第一百條規定，已刪除「不得請求損害賠償」字樣後，將違反專利權標示制度之法律效果定位為舉證責任之規定，與是否得行使損害賠償請求權無涉，但仍似有不足之處尚待釐清。

並列摘要

Patent Act entitled patentee, within the period of legal protection, to possess the exclusive right to exclude other persons from manufacturing, selling, using, or importing for above purposes the patented article without his/her prior consent, unless otherwise provided for in this Act. Therefore, our government has already enacted and stated the relief methods in this Patent Act for dealing with the infringement of patent rights.
Firstly, this study has interpreted the regulations of current Article 84 of 《Patent Act》, including ”request right of removing the infringement and the prevention of any threat of infringement”, ”request right of claiming for damages that caused by infringement” and ”request right of recovering patentee's reputation, as well as briefly make analysis of the Tatbestand of the quest right of damages.
Next, this study has explained the legislative progress for the system of patent marking that regulated in current Article 79 of 《Patent Act》. In accordance with the legislative cases, the properties of patent marking system can be classified as the instruction, and the right or obligation for exclusive patentee; therefore, it can be easily seen that the marking of the serial numbers of patent certificate is one of the obligations for patentee. However, according to those practical cases of patent litigation in Taiwan, significant difference is occurred between opposite sides on the legal effectiveness for the inactiveness of patent marking: it is the prerequisite or unique element for the infringer when exercising the request right of the indemnity of infringement damages; or the important attacking and defending skills for whether the infringer possessed the intentional or unpremeditated subjective element or not.
In addition, with aiming at such dispute, the regulation of Article 100 of ”Draft Amendments to Patent Law”, which has promulgated on May 26(superscript th), 2009 by Intellectual Property Office, has already revoked the words of ”do not request for the indemnity of infringement damages”. It has positioned the legal effectiveness of the patent marking infringement as the regulation of the Burden of Proof, which is irrelevant to whether exercising the request right of the indemnity of infringement damages or not; however, some defects still need to be determined further.