專利法賦予專利權人製造、販賣、使用等行為的排他權,為了適度平衡,又設有專利權之限制。修理與再製即涉及專利權之限制,其中主要包括二個層次的問題:1.應適用什麼理論來處理?美國法上,學說實務傾向以權利耗盡原則作為修理與再製的論理基礎,其原則為:若行為態樣屬於專利法上的「使用」,則因使用權會耗盡,故不會構成侵權,其「修理」係屬合法使用專利物之範圍;但若行為被認定該當於「製造」,則因耗盡原則不及於製造,故仍可能侵權。在學說實務上稱為可允許修理(permissible repair)與再製(reconstruction)。2.合法修理與違法再製應如何區分,區分標準為何?在不同的案例類型中,包括修理、更換零組件甚至是改良專利物品等,應如何認定其合法性,涉及專利物合法使用範圍之界定。 修理與再製在美國、日本與歐洲均有相關案例,值得參考。本文分析整理各國法院所建立的處理模式,並進一步檢討其內容,再以我國專利法為依據,討論在我國法下應如何適用。本文認為,修理與再製應可以專利法第59條第6款的權利耗盡為依據;關於合法修理之認定,則不採美國法上的單一標準說,而參酌「延伸的權利耗盡」與默示授權之情形,綜合考量多項判斷因素,在理論上應較具說服力。我國智財法院愛普生案涉及墨水匣的改造,美國也曾發生類似案例,本文也一併討論。
Patentees are entitled to certain exclusive rights such as making, selling, and using the patented article under the Patent law. To balance the interests, the Patent Law also puts some limitations on the rights. Repair and reconstruction, which involve the issue of patent limitations, contains two main issues: First, what is the adequate rationale for dealing with repair and reconstruction cases? Under American law, courts and scolars tend to use the exhaustion doctrine, or the so-called first-sale doctrine. According to the first-sale doctrine, the buyer may be given the authority to use and sell the particular article. The authority to use includes the ability to repair the article. However, it does not give the buyer the authority to reconstruct the patented article, which falls within the scope of unauthorized “making” and thus may constitute an infringement. This is the doctrine of repair and reconstruction. Second, what is the criterion of permissible repair and reconstruction? How does one differentiate within various cases between simply “fixing” the article, replacing components, and modifications? This thesis reviews abundant cases from the United States, Japan, and European Union. Through these various cases, this thesis analyzes the models introduced by the courts. By examining the rationales in those cases, this thesis tries to build a model which may fit the Taiwanese Patent Law. The exhaustion doctrine under the Article 59 of Taiwanese Patent Law can be applied to the repair and reconstruction cases in Taiwan. Discarding the United States Supreme Court’s singlefactor standard, this thesis cites the “extended first-sale doctrine” and implied license as references and suggests that the multifactor approach may be more convincing. The 2010 Epson ink jet case in Taiwan’s IP court contains the issue of modifications and permissible repair, the situation is somewhat similar to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s case Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Mfg. Corp., Inc. as well as the Japanese IP High Court’s Canon Inc. v. Recycle Assist Co. case. They are all discussed in this thesis.