專利間接侵權立法論之探討

專利權是現代資本主義社會所創設的權利，旨在藉由保障專利權人相當程度的獨佔權，以維持其繼續研究、發明的動機。因此，專利制度的關鍵在於遭受侵權時，所賦予專利權人的救濟管道究竟是否有效。專利侵權分除了「直接侵權」以外，自1871年開始，美國司法實務接續創設、充實另一種侵權態樣—「間接侵權」。間接侵權行為係指行為人並未完全實施任一請求項內的全部技術特徵，卻已經實施其中「重要」或的技術特徵，例如提供專利產品之重要的零件予他人。間接侵權行為對專利權所造成的侵害，有時甚至已經與直接侵權行為相差無幾，然而我國目前並無成文規範來限制間接侵權行為，成了專利權保障的漏網之處。然而，完整保障專利權人的權利固然重要，維護市場上的競爭秩序亦如此，故立法者必須仔細劃定專利權人所得主張的權利範圍，以避免其過度擴張。因此關於專利間接侵權的構成要件，本文介紹美國、日本、德國的學說、實務見解，並比較之。最後，本文分析數則近20年來的我國司法判決，探討我國現行民法第185條如何被適用於間接侵權的案件裡，認為民法第185條因為要件太過寬鬆而不適合作為處理間接侵權行為的依據，在專利法中增訂間接侵權之條文並不會發生部分學者所擔憂之過度擴張專利權的情況，反而是限縮專利權人所得主張間接侵權於合理的範圍之內。

關鍵字

專利法；間接侵權；直接侵權；民法第185條； 2009年專利法修法討論

並列摘要

Patent system is created by modern capitalist society to encourage innovation by ensuring its owner the legal right to exclude others from the making or selling an invention for a period of time. Therefore, the legal remedy against infringement is a crucial part of a patent system. Other than the typical direct infringement, another type of patent infringement was recognized since 1871—the indirect infringement, in which the infringer does not implement the whole invention, but the material part of it instead, for instance, to provide a material component of a patented product to others. The damages indirect infringement causes is no less than direct infringement, however there is currently no specific law prohibiting it throughout the R.O.C. patent system. It is crucial to protect patent owners’ exclusive right, though, maintaining market competition is also necessary. The patent law must strictly circumscribe the scope of patent while allowing patent owners to claim indirect infringement liabilities in the future. For the elements of indirect infringement, this thesis introduce and compare the legislation, scholarship and judicial decisions in U.S.A. , Japan and Germany. Last, this thesis look back to R.O.C.’s judicial decisions for the last two decades, in which those patent owners tried to claim patent indirect infringement with Civil Code Article 185. This thesis has drawn a conclusion that Civil Code Article 185 is not suitable to deal with patent indirect infringement, since there are no well designed elements in this article so that indirect infringement liabilities could easily occur, which is harmful to market competition. To deal with the issue of patent indirect infringement, it would be better to add a provision about it to the Patent Act rather than resorting to Civil Code Article 185.