新型專利技術報告於專利訴訟中之質量實證研究

Qualitative and Quantitative Empirical Research of Technical Evaluation Report regarding Utility Model in Patent Litigation

林卓毅(Cho-Yi 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(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6842/NCTU.2014.00500

摘要

我國自民國九十三年七月一日起施行新型專利審查新制，審查制度由原實體審查改為形式審查，造成新型專利權具高度不確定性，因此，智財局引進新型專利技術報告之配套措施，使權利人及第三人得以客觀判斷新型專利是否合於專利要件，而達到類似實體審查效果。新型專利權人行使專利權時，如未提示新型專利技術報告，不得進行警告。且於新型專利訴訟中，智財法院對新型專利技術報告之認知與見解，往往影響新型專利之專利有效性及訴訟勝敗。由此可知，不論在專利要件判斷上或者專利侵權訴訟中，新型專利技術報告都應被賦予實質意義。惟，目前新型專利技術報告之法律性質被定位為無拘束力之報告，非行政處分，僅作為權利行使或技術利用之參酌，而無實質法律效果。
本論文以質量實證研究方式，藉由新型專利技術報告於新型專利侵權訴訟中之法律地位，探究現行新型專利技術報告制度所衍生之實務問題。在量化實證方面，統計新型專利技術報告於訴訟中之各項數據並分析該些數據所代表意義。在質性實證方面，參酌判決書內容、專利法規和量化實證結果分析原告、被告、智財局及智財法院對新型專利技術報告之認知與見解。再根據質性及量化結果，檢視新型專利制度輔以新型專利技術報告之配套措施後，是否能更客觀準確判斷其專利要件進而探討不當技術報告評價之影響。最後，檢討現行新型專利技術報告在制度設計上與實務操作上之落差及衍生問題，並結合質量實證分析研究，進而提供修法建議及產業佈局策略。

關鍵字

新型專利 ； 新型專利技術報告 ； 形式審查 ； 實體審查 ； 行政處分

並列摘要

Since the new patent policy has been implemented on July 1, 2004, the examination of utility model in Taiwan has been changed from substantive examination to non-substantive one. Therefore, the Intellectual Property Office adopted the technical evaluation report which makes the public could understand whether said utility model has met patentability requirements to achieve the similar effects of substantive examination. As enforcing a utility model, the patentee shall not make a warning without showing the report. Moreover, the interpretations of the report by Intellectual Property Court always affect the validity of the corresponding utility model and the result of the lawsuit. No matter in judging patentability requirements or in patent infringement litigation, the report should be given with substantive meaning. However, the report is currently considered as a no-binding report rather than an administrative disposition.
The qualitative and quantitative empirical researches were used in this thesis to discuss the legal position of the report of utility model in litigation, and to research practical problems arising from the report. In respect of quantitative research, the writer collected the statistics of the report used in the patent infringement litigation and analyzed the significance of such data. With respect to the qualitative research, the writer analyzed the awareness and insights of the plaintiff, defendant, the Intellectual Property Office and the Intellectual Property Court by deliberating the verdicts and the result of quantitative research. Then according to the aforesaid qualitative and quantitative results, the writer reviewed whether the utility model with the report could be more objective and correct to determine the patentability requirements. Finally, this article discusses the derivative issues from the report and practical operation, and provides amendment suggestions of Patent Act and portfolio strategies of the utility model.

並列關鍵字

Utility Model ； Report of Utility Model ； Non-substantive Examination System ； Substantive Examination System ； Administrative Disposition

參考文獻

智慧財產局，《新型專利技術報告答客問》，經濟部智慧財產局，臺北，2014年。

智慧財產局，《專利審查基準》，經濟部智慧財產局，臺北，2009年。

智慧財產局，《專利審查基準》，經濟部智慧財產局，臺北，2013年。

智慧財產局，《專利法逐條釋義》，經濟部智慧財產局，臺北，2008年6月。

劉國讚，《專利實務論》，元照，臺北，2009年4月。