美國專利不正行為法則的發展─兼論於我國專利制度中之適用性探討

Evolution of Inequitable Conduct Doctrine in U.S. Patent Regime and Discussion of It’s Compliance in Taiwan Patent Regime

林育輝(Yu-Hui Lin)

指導教授 ： 劉尚志

國立交通大學/管理學院/管理學院科技法律學程/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6842/NCTU.2010.00143

摘要

本論文研究說明美國的專利訴訟中「權利不可行使(Unenforceable)」的概念，主要是基於衡平法則下對權利人與社會公眾之間的權利調節平衡，基於此衡平法則下，美國法院在專利訴訟中發展出了不正行為法則(Inequitable Conduct Doctrine)。在此一不正行為法則下的專利訴訟中，若是系爭專利是專利權人於取得權利的過程中藉由使用一些不正當的行為而得以順利取得專利權時，系爭專利是會被認定為不可行使。在我國的智慧財產權案件審理法第16條賦予民事法院自為判斷系爭專利是否有應撤銷之原因，一旦法院認定為有，專利權人於該民事訴訟中不得對他造主張權利。因此若於我國申請專利時使用不正行為之手段如詐欺、隱藏資訊等而取得專利權時，該專利權是否構成有應撤銷之原因？頗值得深入探討。本文整理了美國法院在專利訴訟中不正行為法則發展歷程，本文亦就我國現有法規在不正行為上的適用性提出分析。

關鍵字

不正行為 ； 專利訴訟 ； 不可行使 ； 潔淨之手

並列摘要

This study analyzed the “Unenforceable” concept in U.S. patent litigation practice. Generally, this concept that has its roots in the equitable doctrine balances private’s rights and public interests. The equity-based doctrine, inequitable conduct doctrine, is developed by the courts for patent litigation. Under the inequitable conduct doctrine, if the patent-in-suit is obtained by misconducts during patent prosecution, the federal district court may eventually enter a judgement of unenforceability. In Taiwan, Article 16 of Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act gives the civil court to decide based on the merit of the case when a party claims or defends that the patent-in-suit shall be cancelled or revoked. Once the court has recognized the grounds for cancellation or revocation of the patnet-in-suit, the holder of the patnet-in-suit cannot claim any rights during the civil action against the opposing party. Therefore, if a patent is obtained with misconducts, such as fraud or hiding information, during its prosecution in Taiwan, whether the patent constitutes the grounds for cancellation or revocation as ruled in Article 16 of Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act? It is worth to have a discussion for this problem. Thus, this study analyzes the evolution of the inequitable conduct doctrine in U.S. patent practice, and also provides suggestions for current Taiwan patent practice.

並列關鍵字

Inequitable conduct ； Patent Litigation ； Unenforceable ； Clean Hand

參考文獻

[1] 陳志光，《專利申請人不正行為規範之研究-以台灣及美國法之比較為中心》，台灣大學科際整合法律研究所碩士論文，2009年7月。

[25] Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics. Co., Ltd., 204 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

[6] Petherbridge, Lee, Rantanen, Jason and Mojibi, Ali, The Federal Circuit and Inequitable Conduct: An Empirical Assessment (October 4, 2010), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1686102.

[14] Kingsdown Medical Consultants Ltd Er v. Hollister Incorporated, 863 F2d 867 (Fed.Cir.1988).

[22] Precision Instrument Mfg Co v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806 (1945).