台美競爭法實務於專利權限制之實證研究---以飛利浦光碟案為例

Empirical Research on the Limitation on the Patent Right from Practice of Taiwan and the United States Competition Law -- Taking the Philips CD-R Case as an Expample

孫士欽(Shih-Chin Sun)

指導教授 ： 范建得

國立清華大學/科技管理學院/科技法律研究所/碩士(2012年)

摘要

不論從何角度而言，飛利浦光碟案是公平交易法上難得之實務案例，特別是關於專利聯合授權(patent pool)在公平交易法上之界線拿捏，得以本案為例，作為競爭法對專利權限制之實證研究，以深入討論。是以，本文以比較法學之方法，研究比較台、美兩國對本案及本議題之見解有何異同。
本案同時牽涉到聯合授權、標準設定、及共同研發三個議題，在標準設定方面之影響已較廣受重視，但共同研發方面之影響及隱藏於其後與聯合授權相牽涉之競爭法爭議，在曾任職公平會之吳秀明主委對本案提出其見解後，其重要性才被呈現並提供了另一值得思考的新方向。
本文之研究發現與美國CAFC判決對比下，CAFC在2009年判決有類似支持吳主委見解的結果，但在2010年判決中，CAFC態度峰迴路轉地改變。經由對美國CAFC就本案判決發展之觀察分析，及其專利濫用(patent misuse)法制發展之研究，可發現其判決結果仍不脫與美國為技術發展前端國家，政策上最終偏向對共同研發及專利授權持較友善之態度。而此顯現之競爭法與專利調和取向上之國家差異性，亦做為提醒我國應思考視國家發展階段決定較傾向何方。

關鍵字

飛利浦 ； 聯合授權 ； 共同研發 ； 競爭關係 ； 專利濫用

並列摘要

From any point of view, the Philips CD-R case is a rare practical case in the field of competition law. In particular, with regard to where to draw the line between the patent pool licensing and competition law, this case can be taken as an example for an in-depth study in empirical research on the limitation on the patent right from competition law. Therefore, using the methodology of comparative law, this paper is devoted to the study of the differences and similarities of this case and the issue between Taiwan and the United States.
This case involves three issues at the same time: the patent pool licensing, the standard setting, and the joint research and development. The influence of the standard setting gets a lot of attention and concern. However, the importance of the influence of the joint research and development and the disputes between competition law and the patent pool licensing hidden behind the joint research and development is not pointed out until Shiow-Ming Wu, who was once the chairman of the Fair Trade Commission, puts forward his viewpoint. A new and worthwhile direction to think is provided.
According to the study result of this paper, in comparison with the judgments of the U.S. CAFC, the Wu’s point of view is supported by the 2009 judgment of the U.S. CAFC in a certain way, but in the 2010 judgment, CAFC dramatically changes its attitude. Through an observation and analysis of the trend of the judgments of this case by the U.S. CAFC and the development of the patent misuse doctrine, it is found that the judgment result still can not depart from the fact the United States is a leading country in technology and it is the policy to take a friendly attitude toward the joint research and development and patent licensing in the long run. And this manifested difference between countries in the orientation of harmonizing competition law and the patent right should also remind our country of taking our nation’s development condition into consideration when making a decision on the orientation.

並列關鍵字

Philips ； patent pool licensing ； joint research and development ； competitive relationship ； patent misuse

參考文獻

14.周相攸，技術標準中關鍵專利之專利權限制—以關鍵設施理論與誠信原則為中心，國立清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，99年6月。

1.謝銘洋，智慧財產權與公平交易法之關係－以專利權為中心，國立台灣大學法學論叢，24卷2期，民84年6月。

16.最高行政法院98年判字第661號判決書。

17.最高行政法院98年判字第419號判決書。

18.最高行政法院98年判字第588號判決書。