涉外智慧財產紛爭事件之國際裁判管轄與準據法決定

The International Jurisdiction and the Applicable law of Intellectual property disputes involving foreign events

林季陽(Chi-Yang Lin)

指導教授 ： 黃銘傑

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/科際整合法律學研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2011.03306

摘要

在過去，與智慧財產權相關之紛爭便多因為其特徵之屬地主義原則而少有討論。今日在全球化之進程下，隨科技發達過去橫亙在國與國之間的物理性藩籬逐漸剝離，使權利易於傳播、擴散而不易有效保護，也突顯出智慧財產權所具有的無體性。另外，隨商業模式之持續發展，更使契約之類型益加複雜、內容與涉及之標的亦極易帶有涉外因素。換言之，若對智慧財產權之保護侷限於一國之內，實有難以真正保護權利人甚至不利於國家產業發展之疑慮。
我國裁判實務上因無與國際裁判管轄權相關之明文規定，過去就此問題較無一致見解。本文參考相關國際公約與立法研究計畫，認為將智慧財產權區分為以登記為成立要件及不以登記為成立要件之智慧財產權，就前者之存在或有效性訴訟由登記國法院專屬管轄之規定，應屬可採。至於侵權訴訟是否採專屬管轄規定，學說上則有爭議。本文認為若採取將侵權行為地解釋為侵權行為地及侵害結果發生地之見解，則因採否定說有利於紛爭解決，實無採取專屬管轄之必要。針對特殊類型侵權行為之無所不在侵害，則參酌日本新修正民事訴訟法之規定，認為藉由對一般規定之解釋即可涵蓋。
在準據法適用上，我國於2011年5月正式開始施行之新修正涉外民事法律適用法中，針對智慧財產之特性依事件類型已設有特別之選法規定。然而，除就新法如何適用與適用上是否有窒礙難行之處，仍有待裁判累積之外。由本文中上開外國之學說見解，可知在我國新法在事件類型化上仍有更加精緻化之空間，如對無所不在侵害、職務發明及職務創作之準據法，本文認為得參考外國立法提案，就現行新法無法完全涵蓋之情形，提供思考與解釋上的方向。

關鍵字

涉外智慧財產權紛爭 ； 國際裁判管轄權 ； 無所不在侵害 ； 準據法 ； 屬地主義原則 ； 保護國法

並列摘要

The disputes related to intellectual property were rarely discussed in the past due to territoriality principle as a characteristic. Nowaday the IP rights can not be easily protected because they are readily spreaded and diffused according to the development of technology under the process of globalization, which underlines the intangibility of IP rights. In addition, the types of contracts become more cmomplicated and their contents and object related often involve foreign events with the progess of business models. Namely, the restricted protection in only one country can not really protect the owner of rights and will be harmful to the development of industry.
Our country has no statute of international jurisdiction and did not reach a consensus on the matter until now. My study, mainly referred to Conventions related and foreign research projects, sorts IP rights into the ones which need registration as a part of constitution and the ones which need not. In disputes having as their object a judgment on the grant, registration, validity, abandonment or revocation of the former, the courts in the State where the right has been registered or is deemed to have been registered shall have exclusive jurisdiction. As for the disputes of infringement of IP rights, it is not necessarily to take exclusive jurisdiction because allowing choice of court helps to solve such disputes. As for the matter of ubiquitous infringement, my study refers to the Amendment of Code of Civil Procedure of Japan and will not draw up a special rule.
The Amendment of the Law Governing the Application of Laws to Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements of our country, which has been enforced from May, 2011, sets up special rules for some types of disputes according to the nature of IP rights. However, my study suggests that these rules related could be improved to handle and to cover ubiquitous infringement and work mad for hire.

並列關鍵字

Intellectual property disputes involving foreign events ； International Jurisdiction ； Ubiquitous infringement ； Applicable law ； Territoriality Principle ； the country for which protection is sought

參考文獻

許忠信，「國際專利公約及發展趨勢 」，經濟部智慧財產局，2009年1月初版。

許忠信，「國際著作權公約及發展趨勢」，經濟部智慧財產局，2009年1月初版。

陳昭華，「國際商標權公約及發展趨勢」，經濟部智慧財產局，2009年1月初版。

謝銘洋，「智慧財產權法」，元照，2008年10月初版。

吳光平，「涉外財產關係案件的國際裁判管轄權」，法學叢刊第201期，頁61-62。