美國法上先使用權抗辯 - 以專利流氓為主

專利流氓的存在嚴重衝擊到專利制度之目的，對現今實務來說解決專利流氓是一項重要的議題。所謂專利流氓是指，從他人手中獲取專利權，然自身並未實施該項專利權，而是利用該項專利權以脅迫或訴訟之手段向目標公司要求給付權利金或賠償金的個人或團體。專利流氓亦被稱為未實施專利實體或專利主張事業體。而專利流氓最主要的成因是專利審查品質的低落，故解決專利流氓最根本的方法是提升專利審查品質，但是提升專利審查品質涉及審查預算之問題，並不能夠立即改善，所以在無法提升專利審查品質之下，現階段遏止專利流氓最有效之手段則是藉由立法政策之修正。　　在新修正之美國專利法中，有效遏止專利流氓的手段之一則是先使用權抗辯，所謂先使用權抗辯係指，行為人於該項發明申請專利前已使用該項發明，得排除專利權之效力，是一項專利排他權之例外，美國關於先使用權抗辯有新舊法之不同，舊法將主張先使用權抗辯之專利客體侷限於方法專利，而新法則擴大其得主張之範圍，不再限於方法專利，如此一來則能夠有效的於訴訟中遏止專利流氓。　　我國之先使用權抗辯相較於美國之制度應屬大同小異，最大之差別應屬於主觀要件及先使用期間之限制，而由於我國在先使用期間並未如美國法規定之一年期間限制，所以較容易主張先使用權抗辯，也較能夠有效遏止專利流氓，惟在主觀要件方面，本文建議，似乎可以於我國專利法之先使用權抗辯加以規範善意之要件，若先使用人為知悉他人發明之情況下，主觀要件上即為惡意，在惡意不保護之大原則，惡意之先使用人應不得享有法律上給予其之先使用權抗辯。　　最後，本文認為，除了必須改善專利之品質外，尚須借助立法政策上之修正，相輔相成，事前嚴格審查專利之品質，減少令專利流氓收購之劣質專利，事後若真遇到專利流氓之濫訴，亦得藉由立法政策上的保障，使專利流氓無法從中獲利，藉由如此之保護，始能夠有效的遏止專利流氓。

關鍵字

商業上先使用權抗辯；專利主張事業體；未實施專利實體；專利流氓；專利品質；專利權效力之限制；專利權；先使用權抗辯；美國發明法

並列摘要

To solve the problem of patent trolls is an important issue, due to it is violating the purpose of patent law. Patent trolls are persons or companies who obtain patent rights and enforces patent rights by accusing of others patent infringement in an attempt to collect licensing fees in the meantime they do not practice those patent rights. Patent trolls, also called non-practicing entities (NPEs) or patent assertion entities (PAEs). The main reason for the problem of patent trolls is that low quality of patent examination, so the most effective solution is to enhance the quality of patent examination, because it involves patent examination budget, it’s difficult to solve the problem of patent trolls immediately. Therefore, to prevent the patent trolls of the present stage effectively is that legislative amendments. Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) amended the prior user defense that expanded 35 U.S.C. §273, previously limited to business method patents, to patents which in all technologies. The prior user defense is one of the restriction of exclusive right of patent. In present patent law, it is easier to claim the prior user defense, also easier to inhabit patent trolls. The statute of prior user defense in our country is similar with U.S. patent law, there are some differences in prior user’s intention and such person has use the technology at least one year before filing date or the date on which the claimed invention was disclosed to the public in a manner that qualified for the exception from prior art under section 102(b). In my opinion, prior user defense should be bona fide user in our country. To prevent patent troll, in addition to enhance the patent quality, legislative amendments is the most efficient and effecting measure.

並列關鍵字

patent assertion entities (PAEs) ； non-practicing entities (NPEs) ； patent trolls ； patent quality ； limit of patent rights ； patent rights ； prior commercial use defense ； prior user defense ； Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)

參考文獻

4. 陳文吟，由美國立法暨實務經驗探討專利品質對提昇產業科技之重要性，臺北大學法學論叢，第74期，民國99年。

3. 李裕勳，專利法上先使用權之研究，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，民國95年。

I. Periodicals

1. Allison, John R. Mark A. Lemley & Joshua Walker, Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants, 99 GEO. L.J. 677 (2011).

2. Calvo, Paul Expansion of the Prior-User Rights Defense Its Implications for Bioproduction Methods, 10 BIOPROCESS INTERNATIONAL 5 (2012).

國際替代計量

美國法上先使用權抗辯 - 以專利流氓為主

未授權

主題瀏覽