從專利授權本質論專利無效之權利金返還問題

A study retrieved from the merit of patent licensing to the return of royalties paid under an invalided patent

林孟真(Meng-Jen Lin)

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(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.00165

摘要

我國業者長年在外國大廠之侵權訴訟威脅下，被迫簽署授權契約而支付巨額權利金，僅求於授權期間不遭訴訟滋擾；然而專利權本具權利範圍和內容不穩定之特徵，專利權一旦遭撤銷確定而溯及無效，被授權人得否請求返還先前繳交之權利金，久為我國實務學者爭論，司法院去年以「智慧財產法律座談會」研討結果明確否定專利權無效時被授權人權利金之返還可能性，實務並有智慧財產法院99年度民專訴字第191號民事判決聲援，提出「專利授權」不以專利權「有效存在」為必要，且縱專利為無效，權利金仍屬實施技術之「對價」，非屬不當得利等主張，該見解是否過度偏重專利權人保護、罔顧更弱勢之被授權人處境？實有檢討必要。
本文比較了專利權遭撤銷前簽訂之讓與契約、授權契約和專利權遭撤銷時已確定之民事侵權訴訟於專利權無效時之處理方式，提出「受讓人、侵權人和被授權人間不同處遇」之疑問；進一步針對司法院見解提出專利授權契約之權利義務存在應以「專利權有效」為前提、「事實上利益」不應作為專利權人保留權利金之理由、法律安定性於現行法下無解釋可能等回應；並於區辨「專屬授權」和「非專屬授權」權能範圍和市場力量後，先提出「權利金至少應於非專屬授權情形返還」之方案；後回歸民法理論，比較「自始客觀不能」和「權利瑕疵擔保」之立法目的、法律要件、歸責型態和賠償範圍差異，主張以「自始客觀不能」等債務不履行規定兼顧被授權人和專利權人間之公平，提供被授權人挑戰專利有效性之誘因，以達成本文「保護被授權人免於承受專利無效風險」和「將不良專利排斥於獨占保護之列」等目標。

關鍵字

專利授權 ； 專屬授權 ； 專利無效 ； 自始客觀不能 ； 權利瑕疵擔保

並列摘要

Our domestic enterprises have long been threatened by patent litigations that are or are going to be initiated by foreign patent owners. In order to diminish or minimize the possibilities of being so sued, these enterprises tend to acquire at least a non-exclusive license which normally accompanied with excessive amount of royalties. However, in case the patent was found invalid, it is still disputing that “shall the licensee be able to demand refund of the royalties paid. Majority opinions in Taiwan regarding this issue are that “to establish and sustain a patent license it is not necessary to have an effective patent” and “royalties paid for a patent that is found invalid is non-refundable for it was paid in exchange of technologies transferred from such invalidated patent”. These opinions are unfairly in favor of owner of such invalidated patent regardless of licensee’s interests, shall be reviewed.

This thesis (“Thesis”) first questions the differentiated treatments for one and same invalidated patent under a procurement agreement, a license agreement or a litigation and subsequently concluded and proposed that the rights and obligations between a patent licensor and licensee shall only be established and sustained under a valid patent. Moreover, “economic gains” and “stability of law” shall not become reasons that justify such differentiated treatments. After defining the spheres and contents of “exclusive license” and “non-exclusive license”, this Thesis firstly proposes that at least in a “non-exclusive license”, royalties paid under invalided patent should be refunded. Secondly, in the Thesis the author introduces and compares natures of “obviously impossible in performance per se” and “representation and warranty regarding rights” and proposes to apply rules regarding the “obviously impossible in performance per se” to balance interests of both licensor and licensee with an inducement that will encourage licensee to challenge validity of the patent so as to reduce the risk of patent invalidation.

並列關鍵字

Patent License ； Exclusive License ； Invalid Patent ； Obviously Impossible in Performance per se ； Representation and Warranty regarding Rights

參考文獻

12.陳聰富（2009），《專利契約》，台北：經濟部智慧財產局。

15.黃章典（2009），《專利授權實務》，台北：經濟部智慧財產局。

24.蔡明誠（2007），《專利法》，台北：經濟部智慧財產局。

26.賴文智（2006），《智慧財產權契約》，台北：經濟部智慧財產局。

28.駱永家（1999），《民事訴訟法一》，台北：自版。