由美國法探討我國引進專利權間接侵害規範之可行性

專利制度以權利的授予作為誘因鼓勵發明人將其創新技術公開，來達到促進整體產業、技術發展之目的。而專利權間接侵害有別於一般常見之直接侵權類型，行為人雖非直接侵害專利權本身，但其行為卻對於他人之專利侵權具有誘導、幫助作用，從而對於專利權人而言，間接侵權人實係侵害之源頭，若無法對其追究責任，恐將影響專利權之效力。是以，為了完整保護專利權人就其發明可得享有之利益，並維持專利制度之誘因功能，國際上諸多先進各國皆已設有專利間接侵權之相關規範，如美國、日本、韓國與德國等國家，然我國現行專利法卻仍付之闕如，故本研究希冀藉由對於美國法上間接侵權制度的探討，分析我國引進專利權間接侵害規範之可行性，並試圖提出將來立法上之建議。美國法之專利間接侵權制度係源自19世紀後期案例法上的共同侵權概念，並經由法院不斷地解釋與援用而逐漸發展成「輔助侵權原則」，具有一定的構成要件以及認定標準，惟此理論在發展過程中卻與後來實務所發展出的「專利權濫用原則」產生爭議，進而促使美國國會於1952年將存在於案例法上許久的「輔助侵權原則」明文化規定於美國專利法中，並進一步將專利間接侵權責任區分為引誘侵權及輔助侵權分別加以規範，輔助侵權之規範內容與原先案例法上所發展出的構成要件相似，引誘侵權則係以較廣泛的構成要件以規範涵蓋該些雖不符合輔助侵權之構成要件，但實則指示、促進或教唆他人侵權之行為。我國現行專利法制中並無間接侵權之概念存在，故專利權人多係援引民法第185條共同侵權責任之規定來主張行為人構成造意或幫助侵權，惟我國司法實務在依據民法之規定處理專利間接侵權案件時，有見解不一致之情形，主要在於「直接侵權存在」以及「主觀要件」之認定上，且多係不利於專利權人之舉證；又因為民法共同侵權之規定要件簡要，使得當事人及法院在訴訟上難以論及專利間接侵權特殊之行為態樣、行為客體與排除規範。從而民法之規定不但無法提供專利權人充足之訴訟誘因、亦不適合作為主張專利間接侵權責任之救濟途徑。在距離本研究將近10年前，我國智慧財產局(下稱「智財局」)曾經擬定專利間接侵權之修正草案，惟當時主要考量到此項制度可能不利我國產業發展、相關實務案例不足以及智財法院甫成立等顧慮，最終並未將專利間接侵權之規範納入專利法修正草案中。時至去年2017年年底，智財局方重啟我國引進專利權間接侵害規範之相關討論，本文對此持正面態度，並希冀本研究所提出之立法建議能提供將來立法時一個思考方向，蓋若能盡快建立符合我國國情之專利間接侵權制度，方使法院實務能透過重複地適用、解釋規範來累積相關見解，更能使我國專利制度藉由對於專利權的完整保護來促進社會公眾福祉之機制得以展現。

關鍵字

專利；專利權；間接侵害；間接侵權；引誘侵權；輔助侵權；專利權濫用

並列摘要

In order to achieve the purpose of promoting overall industry and technology development, the patent system encourages the inventors to disclose their innovative skills with the incentive to grant patent rights. Different from the common types of direct infringement, indirect infringer does not directly infringe upon the patent right itself, but its behavior has the effect of inducing and assisting others in patent infringement. In other words, indirect infringers are actually the source of the infringement for the patentee. And if indirect infringers do not have to bear certain legal liability for his conducts, it may affect the effectiveness of the patent right. Therefore, in order to completely protect the interests of the patentee for its inventions and maintain the incentive function of the patent system, many advanced countries in the world have already established relevant regulations for patent indirect infringement, such as the United States, Japan, South Korea and Germany; however, the current patent law in Taiwan has still not established relevant regulations. This thesis therefore hopes to make a reconsideration of introducing patent indirect infringement to Taiwan from the perspective of U.S. law, and tries to propose legislative advices for future legislation. The patent indirect infringement system of U.S. was derived from the concept of joint infringement in case law of the late 19th century, and gradually evolving into the "contributory infringement doctrine" with certain constituent elements and criteria through the court's constant interpretation and application. However, this doctrine was in conflicts with the "doctrine of patent misuse" which also evolved by the courts later. This made the Congress explicitly stipulated the “contributory infringement doctrine” which has existed for a long time in case law into the U.S. Patent Law in 1952, and further distinguished the patent indirect infringement into inducing infringement and contributory infringement. The constituent elements of contributory infringement are similar to the doctrine which existed in pre-1952's case law; and the constituent elements of inducing infringement are more extensive that can cover those conducts that do not constitute contributory infringement, but in fact instruct, facilitate or abet others to commit infringement. Since the lack of indirect infringement regulations in current Taiwan patent law, the patentees in Taiwan are mostly pursuant to Article 185 of the Civil Code to claim that indirect infringers constitute joint torts. But when the courts deal with patent indirect infringement cases according to Article 185 of the Civil Code, there are inconsistencies mainly in determinations of "existence of direct infringement" and "subjective requirements", which are often unfavorable to patentees. In addition, because of constituent elements of Civil Code is really brief, it is difficult for the parties and the courts to argue and discuss the particular conduct of patent indirect infringement, the object of conduct, and the excluded range in litigations. Therefore, the Civil Code not only fails to provide sufficient incentives for the patentee to file a lawsuit, but also is not suitable as an approach for patentees to claim patent indirect infringement liability. Almost 10 years ago, Taiwan Intellectual Property Office(TIPO) had ever drafted an amended draft for introducing indirect infringement into the Patent Law. But the main considerations at that time was that this introduction may be detrimental to our industrial development, and due to the Intellectual Property Court was just starting to operate, there were lacking of related cases for reference, so the indirect infringement draft was eventually not included in the final version of the amended draft in 2009. It was not until the end of 2017, TIPO restarted the relevant discussions on introducing patent indirect infringement. We totally hold a positive attitude towards this, and hope that the legislative advices which this thesis proposes will provide a direction for the future legislation. The establishment of patent indirect infringement regulation not only enables our courts to accumulate relevant opinions and insights through repeat application and interpretation, but also completely protects patentees’ rights so that the function of the patent system to enhance public welfare can be revealed.