企業技術保護之策略選擇—以侵害專利及營業秘密之責任為中心

The Choice of the Protection of Enterprise's Technologies – Centering on the Liabilities of Infringement of Patents and Trade Secrets

謝亞耘(Ya-Yun Hsieh)

指導教授 ： 黃銘傑

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201603015

摘要

隨著科技與知識時代的來臨，再加上企業間競爭越趨激烈，為求在市場中佔有一席之地，企業無不致力於各項創新技術之研發，相反的，亦造就不少企業不願投入此等高成本自行研發，而選擇剽竊他人之創新技術成果以求獲利，而造成他企業無法彌補之損失。因此，本文就事實上及法律上保護方法兩層面對保障企業創新技術之方式進行探討，並根據企業創新技術之特性及企業對該技術之後續應用計畫就各保護方式間之利弊得失進行衡量評估。
其中，自法律上保護方法而言，涉及創新技術之智慧財產權保護為專利制度及營業秘密制度，我國專利法已於民國92年全面除罪化，然就營業秘密法之立法政策上，為加強對營業秘密之保護，我國已於民國102年於營業秘密法中增設刑事責任，是以我國專利制度及營業秘密制度就權利人之權利受侵害時所得尋求之救濟途徑已出現明顯差異，此無非是立法者審酌社會情況對國家刑事政策所做出之價值判斷，惟本文認為該兩制度既屬我國智財制度中性質最相近者，且兩者保護客體亦多有重疊之處，故於保護政策上應適用一致性之責任規範方為合理；再者，於我國現行制度下，企業於抉擇以何種制度保護其創新技術時，很可能便傾向選擇多一道刑事救濟手段之營業秘密制度，基於營業秘密不公開之秘密性，即無法賦予公眾實施及使用其發明之機會，從而對促進整體產業之發展與進步產生一大障礙，此點完全與專利制度欲藉國家授予發明者專屬排他權，以交換其公開發明，進而促進產業發展之立法目的大相逕庭。是以，不僅我國新修正之營業秘密刑事責任尚有諸多值得檢討之處，就專利制度而言，其本質上更應考慮尋求「避免濫訴」與「提供專利權人經濟誘因」之平衡點，而非一昧將其全面除罪化，此亦是營業秘密法增設刑事責任後所需思考之課題。

關鍵字

專利 ； 營業秘密 ； 侵害 ； 除罪化 ； 刑事責任 ； 懲罰性賠償

並列摘要

Accompanied with the era of knowledge and technology and the increasing competition among enterprises, the enterprises are all engaging in the development of new technologies in order to dominate the market. On the other hand, there are also many people who are not willing to invest such high costs to develop the technologies themselves but choosing to pirate others' new technologies for their own profits, which causes other enterprises' irreparable losses. Therefore, the author analyzed the protective methods for new technologies both from factual and legal perspectives and further evaluated the pros and cons between such methods based on the nature of various new technologies and the enterprises' future plan of using such new technologies.
From the perspective of legal protection, the intellectual property rights involving new technologies are patent and trade secret systems. Criminal penalty of all kinds of patent infringement was abolished from Patent Law of R.O.C. in 2003, while the legislators determined to add criminal liability to trade secret infringement in 2013 for the protection of the same, therefore, the remedies that may be sought for by the holder of trade secrets differ from which may be sought for by the patentees. The author hold that since patents and trade secrets are the most similar systems within intellectual property rights and the protective objects of these two systems overlap a lot, it is unreasonable that the protective policies of these two systems are different. In addition, when enterprises choose the method to protect their new technologies, they may, under our current regulations, prefer to choose the trade secret system with one more criminal remedy, however, according to the non-revealing nature of trade secrets, such system cannot grant the public the right to practice and use such invention, and thus forms an obstacle to the improvement of the whole industry, which is completely opposite to the legislative reason that the nation intends to grand the inventor the exclusive right through the patent system for the exchange of revealing his/her inventions for the improvement of industry. Therefore, not only shall the added criminal remedy of trade secrets be criticized for many reasons, but the legislators shall, for the patent system, seek a balance between the "avoidance of lawsuit abuse" and the "provision of the patentee's economic incentive" other than merely abolishing all kinds of criminal penalty for patent infringement, which is also a considerable issue after the adding of criminal remedy for trade secrets.

並列關鍵字

patent ； trade secret ； infringement ； decriminalization ； criminal liabilities ； punitive damages

參考文獻

陸義淋（2006），《智慧財產權管理實務及策略》，經濟部智慧財產局。

蔡明誠（2013），《專利法》，經濟部智慧財產局。

張靜（2007），《營業秘密法及相關智財問題》，經濟部智慧財產局。

耿筠（2004），〈影響研究機構選擇專利或營業祕密保護研發成果之因素研究〉，《管理學報》，21卷2期。

謝銘洋（1995），〈智慧財產權與公平交易法之關係—以專利權為中心〉，《台大法學論叢》，24卷2期。