行政介入智慧財產權之研究

智慧財產權必須先獲得充分保障以及有效運用才能發揮功能，在尊重私法自治與契約自由之前提下，過去智慧財產權爭議都以法律訴訟途徑作為解決途徑，例如侵權、無效、所有權歸屬、授權金額等智慧財產權等紛爭，都是以司法途徑解決。此外，而智慧財產權之運用，行政機關也以不介入為原則。但徵諸以往實務經驗，司法途徑之解決不僅從時間上、費用上來看均難收即時之效，因此近年來訴訟外解決機制甚至以公權力排難解紛，成為疏減訟源、節省費用，迅速回復法律和平為考量之私權糾紛解決途徑。而以非訟手段解決智慧財產權糾紛的方式有很多，包括調解、調解、仲裁、行政指導、行政協調等。而美國的替代性爭端解決機制（ADR）是最著名的非訴爭議解決機制。除了非訴訟糾紛解決機制外，行政介入也是解決智慧財產權民事糾紛的另一途徑。意即行政機關以公權力介入，協助爭議方進行調解、調處、仲裁等，此時因為行政權之介入，可能將提供較為公平、迅速且節約成本之解決機制，讓當事人能較快解決私權爭議。本文提出以行政機關以行政介入手段解決智慧財產權之紛爭解決與強制授權問題。提出了行政干預解決知識產權糾紛的多種途徑，包括調解、調解、仲裁、行政指導、行政裁決等非典型行政行為。主要討論行政權介入智慧財產權之合憲性與合法性，法律關係與行為模式；並參考國外法律及國內案例，針對建立行政介入智慧財產權之機制提供薄見，以為未來主管機關修法或研究發展思路之參考。

關鍵字

行政介入；智慧財產權紛爭；強制授權；替代性爭端解決機制

並列摘要

Intellectual property rights must be fully protected and deployed before they can bring into play function. Under the premise of respecting the private autonomy and freedom of contract ,in the past, the most of intellectual property disputes were resolved through legal litigation. In addition, administrative agencies also basically don't intervene in the use of intellectual property rights. However, based on past practical experiences, judicial proceedings are not only a waste of time but also a waste of cost. In recent years, the dispute resolution mechanisms by non-litigation has been used to resolve disputes, and it has become a way to resolve private rights disputes with the consideration of reducing the sources of litigation, saving Litigation costs, and quickly restoring peace. There are many ways to resolve Intellectual property disputes by non-litigation, including conciliation, mediation, arbitration, administrative guidance, administrative coordination. American Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) is the most famous dispute resolution mechanisms by non-litigation. In addition the dispute resolution mechanisms by non-litigation, administrative interference is another path to resolve civil intellectual property disputes. It means that the administrative agency intervenes with public power to urge parties to negotiate to negotiate the disputes in mediation, mediation, arbitration, etc. Because administrative interference can provide a fair, rapid and cost-saving resolution mechanism, so that parties can resolve private rights disputes quickly. This paper presents that some ways may resolve Intellectual property disputes and compulsory licensing by administrative interference, including conciliation, mediation, arbitration, administrative guidance, administrative adjudication and other non-typical administrative acts. This paper mainly discusses the Constitutionality and legality of administrative Intervention in intellectual property, and the legal relationships and legal behavior pattern of administrative Intervention in intellectual property. This paper also refers to foreign laws and domestic cases to provide insights on the establishment of a mechanism for administrative intervention in intellectual property rights, which can be used as a reference for future competent authorities to amend laws or research and develop ideas.