我國智慧財產案件證據開示之研究——以專利及營業秘密案件為核心

智慧財產案件中，常存有證據偏在之情事，而其中專利權及營業秘密雖同樣屬於無體財產權，然而其侵害行為，未必會見諸於客觀可見的形體，如此將令原告之蒐證過程更為艱鉅。甚者，營業秘密尚有刑事搜索扣押之手段，惟專利法已除罪化，僅有民事救濟措施，更加凸顯專利侵權案件之蒐證困境。此外，雖然營業秘密案件尚存有刑事搜索扣押之手段，惟基於偵查不公開之原則，侵權案件中法院審理之依據仍侷限於證據保全所獲得之證據。因此，民事程序中的證據保全制度於專利案件及營業秘密案件中之運用尤其重要。於此，民國96年制定智慧財產案件審理法時，立法者特別於第18條強化證據保全程序，其立法理由更提及確定事物現狀型之證據保全，於智慧財產訴訟，尤應積極運用。然過去學者實證研究自2008年至2012年智慧財產法院之專利案件證據保全一審之裁定，卻發現智慧財產法院未能「積極運用」證據保全，造成證據保全聲請核准率低落，飽受各界抨擊。故本文承前所述，將著眼於對證據保全制度亟需的專利及營業秘密案件，欲重新審視近年來智慧財產法院之證據保全核准率歷經各界撻伐後是否有所提升，探究我國現行之制度是否仍須調整以及如何調整。而本文接續前述學者之研究，整理智慧財產法院自2013年至2020年之專利及營業秘密案件之證據保全裁定，就一審之部分分析其近年來之核准率，以及不同法官之核准率、委任律師代理之情況等，並分析其中之聲請與駁回理由；就二審之部分則分析其裁定維持率，以確保二審之修正功能。其中，本文發現近年來專利案件證據保全聲請之核准率再次跌到谷底，以及證據保全聲請核准率在不同法官間有著顯著的差異，駁回理由不乏法律所無規定之要件，從而造成法規適用上的不確定性。另外，本文也發現到專利及營業秘密案件證據保全聲請委任律師代理的比率相當高，進而思索於此推行律師強制代理之可能，並探究有無引入美國聯邦民事訴訟法由律師主導進行證據開示之空間。是否須引進美國之證據開示制度為過去學界所熱烈討論，惟司法院先前對此之態度係暫不引進，反對理由的其中之一便是證據開示制度係由律師主導，我國目前並未採取律師強制代理，律師之質與量均不足以支持此一制度。然而，我國於民國110年7月1日施行之商業事件審理法，對於商業事件係採行律師強制代理制度。同時，商業事件審理法亦參考美國之證據開示制度引入了當事人查詢制度及專家證人制度。而我國目前係將商業法院與原智慧財產法院合併設立，並更名為智慧財產及商業法院。未來，於同一法院底下，同樣對於上開制度有高度需求之智慧財產案件卻無從適用上開制度，豈非有失公允？故本文於觀察完我國智慧財產案件實務之現狀後，欲介紹美國之證據開示制度，以及其於我國商業事件審理法之應用，並對我國現行制度提出建議，盼能提供智慧財產權人更豐富之蒐證途徑。最後，本文亦考量變更現行法制之不易，故對於未更動現行法制之情況下，亦提出幾點建議以改善現行之蒐證困境。

關鍵字

專利侵權；營業秘密侵害；證據保全；證據開示；智慧財產案件審理法；當事人查詢制度；律師強制代理

並列摘要

It is known that collecting evidence is hard in IP cases. Although patents and trade secrets are also intangible property rights, their infringements may not necessarily be seen in an objectively visible form. This will make the plaintiff harder to collect the evidence than the other IP cases. Moreover, there is still criminal prosecution for trade secrets, while the patent law has been decriminalized. Besides, although there is still criminal prosecution in trade secret cases, based on the principle of secret investigation, the materials for the trials in civil cases are still limited to the evidence obtained by civil preservation of evidence. Therefore, the application of the evidence preservation system in civil procedures in patent cases and trade secret cases is particularly important. In this regard, when the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act was promulgated in 2007, legislators strengthened the evidence preservation procedures in Article 18. The legislative reasons even referred that the preservation of evidence should be particularly actively used in IP cases. However, the scholars have analyzed the judgments of evidence preservation in patent cases by the IP court from 2008 to 2012, finding that the IP court failed to "actively use" the evidence preservation system. Therefore, this article will focus on patent and trade secret cases which urgently need the evidence preservation system, re-examining whether the approval rate of motion to preserve evidence in the IP court has increased in recent years, and observe whether the system in Taiwan still need to be adjusted or not. This article continues the research made by the aforementioned scholars, collecting the judgments of evidence preservation of patent and trade secret cases by the IP court from 2013 to 2020, analyzing the approval rate of the motions in recent years, the approval rate for different judges, the rate of legal representation, etc., and studies the reasons for the motions and dismissal. Accordingly, this article finds that in recent years, the approval rate of motion to preserve evidence in patent cases has dropped to the bottom again and that the approval rate for different judges is significantly distinct. Besides, through the reasons for the dismissal, finding the judges often consider the circumstances which are not regulated by the law. Therefore, these make the application of the law much uncertain. On the other hand, this article also finds that the ratio of legal representation in evidence preservation in patent and trade secret case is quite high, which further extends to the possibility of adopting mandatory legal representation, exploring whether there is a chance for introducing the U.S. discovery system which was led by the attorneys. Whether it is necessary to introduce the U.S. discovery system has been discussed in the past, but the Judicial Yuan’s previous attitude on this is not to introduce it for the time being. One of the reasons is that the discovery system is led by lawyers, and we do not adopt mandatory legal representation in Taiwan. Furthermore, the quality and quantity of attorneys are insufficient to support this system. However, the recently promulgated Commercial Case Adjudication Act will adopt mandatory legal representation system for commercial cases. At the same time, the Commercial Case Adjudication Act also introduces interrogatories and expert witness from the U.S., and the commercial court and the original IP court are merged. In the future, commercial cases and IP cases will be in the same court, while the IP cases that also have a high demand for interrogatories will not be able to apply this, which is unreasonable. Therefore, after observing the current situation in Taiwan, this article intends to discuss the discovery of evidence system from the U.S., and its application to the recently promulgated Commercial Case Adjudication Act in Taiwan, hoping to provide more sufficient way to collect evidence for IP owners. Finally, this article considers the difficulty of the amendment for the current legal system, so in the case of not changing the current legal system, this article also puts forward a few suggestions to fix the current evidence collection dilemma.

並列關鍵字

Patent Infringement ； Trade Secret Misappropriation ； Preservation of Evidence ； Discovery ； Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act ； Interrogatories ； Mandatory Legal Representation