從程序保障觀點論技術審查官制度之改革

Discussion on Reformation of Technical Examination Officer from the Viewpoint of Procedure Protection

芮嘉瑋(Chia-Wei Jui)

指導教授 ： 李崇僖

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/CYCU.2011.00137

摘要

在全球保護智慧財產權的浪潮下，我國亦設立了智慧財產法院(智財法院)，並在2008年7月1日正式開始運作，期望能達到智慧財產案件審判的效率化與專業化，以徹底解決以往之訴訟延宕及法官專業性不足的問題。智慧財產法院組織法參考各國法制後設置技術審查官，於審理法上之定位係法院輔助人的角色，即對於法官專業性不足的問題予以輔助，立意甚佳。然而技術審查官制度如何運作，實具有極大之挑戰性與想像空間，亦為關注智慧財產訴訟發展之實務界所重視。本研究從程序保障觀點檢視智財法院成立以來技術審查官制度實務運作之爭議，舉凡其定位不明而有所謂影子法官之嫌、有限之人力佈署如何能夠處理無限技術領域的專利訴訟案件、迴避規定、專利有效性之自為認定、技術報告不公開、對當事人為說明或發問、似取代各專業人才而未行必要之證據調查等問題，並且一併討論法官是否積極詢問當事人並適度公開心證對當事人訴訟權益產生的影響，進而對技術審查官制度所產生之積弊提出改革之可能，最後嘗試提出一些建議，作為本文之結論。

關鍵字

智慧財產法院 ； 技術審查官 ； 法院輔助人 ； 程序保障 ； 專利有效性自為認定 ； 技術報告不公開 ； 公開心證

並列摘要

Given the growing global tide for protection of intellectual property rights, Taiwan has also set up its intellectual property court (IPR Court). The court commenced operation on July 1, 2008 in a bid to improve the efficiency and enhance professionalism in the judgment of IPR cases and thoroughly resolve the lingering problem of procrastination in litigation and inadequate professionalism of judges. The Organization Act of Intellectual Property Court has referenced the legal systems of various nations and set up the technical examination officer. In judgment law, the positioning of technical examination officer is to play an auxiliary role in the court, that is, to supplement the inadequate professionalism of the judge. This is a brilliant idea. Nevertheless, the operation of this technical examination officer system is confronted with intense challenge and full of imaginative space. The intellectual property practicers have laid much emphasis and concern on the development of intellectual property litigation. This research proceeds from procedural protection in reviewing the intellectual property court and the controversies in practical operation of the technical examination officer system since its inception. The technical examination officer is often accused for being shadow judges because of its equivocal positioning. With under staffed, the limited number of technical examination officers cannot handle so many patent litigation cases with myriad technical fields. Besides, the technical examination officer are also complained for circumventing regulations, arbitrary judgment for the validity of patents, reluctance to release technical reports, explaining or questioning the concerned person, and seemingly replaced the professionals yet failed to carry out necessary investigation based on evidence. In addition, the research also discusses whether the judge has actively inquired about the person concerned and appropriately explored the influence of discretional evaluation of evidence to litigation rights and benefits of the concerned person and lastly tries to present some recommendations for possible reform of shortcomings generated from the technical examination officer system. This is the conclusion of this article.

並列關鍵字

an auxiliary role in the court ； the technical examination officer ； Intellectual property court ； arbitrary judgment for the validity of patents ； disclose discretional evaluation of evidence ； procedural protection ； reluctance to release technical reports

參考文獻

司法行政廳，成立智慧財產法院評估報告，司法院，2004年8月13日。

陳榮宗、林慶苗，民事訴訟法，三民書局，1996年7月。

陳計男，民事訴訟法論(上)，三民書局，1994年9月。

黃國昌，民事訴訟法教室Ⅰ，元照出版，2009年4月。

楊建華，民事訴訟法要論，三民書局，1994年4月。