論國家資助研發成果之運用及歸屬－以科技基本法介入權規範為中心

The Legal Institutions of March-In Rights to the government-Funded Research Results under the Fundamental Science and Technology Act

陳婉寧(Wan-Ning Chen)

指導教授 ： 林明昕

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/科際整合法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201703921

摘要

入權乃政府資助研發成果下放予執行單位使用後之最後監督機制。為了確保成果使用人和所有人能確實將該些成果技術商品化，讓民眾得以接近使用國家資助成果，產業提升技術水準，故我國科技基本法第6條第3項規定，允許資助機關發動「介入權」，作為干預研發成果使用管理之管制手段。
本文前半篇是國內外之介入權法制分析與比較，後半篇則以我國公法學理進行評述。第二章探討我國相關制度，第三章考察美國法例，蓋我國介入權法制係繼受美國拜度法案而來。第四章回應前一章節美國法制及實務操作之觀察，從學理觀點，通盤檢討我國介入權法制，並探討可能發生的救濟問題。
本文核心問題環繞在如何在私人財產權保障與公共利益間取得平衡。倘若資助機關貿然行使介入權，將會造成廠商在市場上對於政府資助研發成果容易受到政府控制干預之印象，該寒蟬效應將不利於所有的政府下放成果之商品化。關於介入權之法律效果，應注意「收歸國有」恐有阻礙下放研發成果活絡使用之疑慮，故發動之必要性門檻應較「強制授權」較來得高，始為妥適，且介入權機制未符合徵收給予補償之憲法要求，對於成果權利人之財產權保障並不周延，本文建議應盡速修法補正之。本文亦就程序正當性進行檢討，並建議應加強告知權及意見陳述機制。最後，本文關懷權利保障之貫徹，針對介入權發動與否准之二種情形，探討提起訴訟之人是否具有公法上權利，應如何提起行政訴訟尋求救濟等問題。雖然我國實務上目前尚未出現相關案例，但本文期許能為該等法制未來應如何發展與實踐，提供一些思考方向。

關鍵字

科技基本法 ； 介入權 ； 國家資助 ； 研發成果 ； 智慧財產 ； 拜度法案

並列摘要

The institution of march-in rights is the final supervisory mechanism of the government-funded research results. In order to ensure these results become commercialized, are available to the public and upgrades the industry level, the funding agencies may exercise the march-in right to control the use of their funded results according to article 6, paragraph 3 of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act.
This thesis is divided into two parts. The first part introduces Taiwan’s relevant legal systems and compares with the Bayh-Dole Act in the U.S., while the second involves the theories of constitutional law and administrative law in the discussion of the constitutionality and juridical remedies.
The core issue in this thesis is how to strike a balance between public interests and private property rights. Once the march-in right is exercised indiscreetly, the image that the use of government-funded research results are easily intervened by the agencies may make chilling effects on private sectors, which frustrates the commercialization of these transferred technologies. With regard to the legal effect, “nationalization” is in doubt that might hinder government-funded results from effective use, so the trigger threshold of nationalization necessity should be higher than the one of “compulsory licensing” necessity. This thesis also urges a law amendment to set forth compensation for expropriation, which will fulfill the constitutional protection from infringement of property rights for these research results’ right holders. Furthermore, this thesis reviews the procedural legitimacy of the concerning law institutions and then suggests that the right to be informed and the mechanism of statement of opinion should be strengthened. Last, with a view to implementing the protection of rights, this thesis concerns about how to judge if one has subjective public rights to claim remedy and how to select litigation types. To date, there has not been any case involved with march-in rights happening in our country, and this thesis attempts to offer some thinking directions to help such legal institutions effectively put into practice in the future.

並列關鍵字

the Fundamental Science and Technology Act ； march-in right ； government funded ； research results ； intellectual property ； Bayh-Dole Act

參考文獻

陳清秀（2015）。《行政訴訟法》，7版。台北：元照。

陳新民（2005）。《憲法學釋論》，修正5版。台北：自版。

江嘉琪（2004）。〈行政契約與行政處分之容許性〉，《律師雜誌》303期，頁60-70。

李昂杰（2009）。〈科技基本法第六條與研發成果運用〉，《科技法律透析》，21卷1期，頁2-6。

李惠宗（2004）。〈職業自由主觀要件限制之違憲審查-司法院大法官釋字第五八四號解釋評析〉，《憲政時代》，30卷3期，頁255-293。