從美國立法例檢討我國之專利爭訟制度：以侵權訴訟、舉發撤銷與更正之交錯為中心

Study on the Patent Litigation in the USA and Taiwan: Focusing on the Interaction Among Invalidation and Amendment Proceedings and Infringement Lawsuit

李素華(Su-Hua Lee)

《臺大法學論叢》 49卷2期 (2020/06) Pp. 477-558

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.202006_49(2).0002

摘要

與其他提升科學技術水準與促進產業發展之政策工具相較，專利權在提供研發誘因上扮演重要角色。我國專利制度受到德國立法例之公法及私法雙軌制影響，有效性爭議屬於行政事件，侵權議題則適用民事爭訟程序。相異於兩造當事人對立之無效訴訟，於我國質疑專利有效性之舉發撤銷屬於公法事件，因此，智慧局必為一造當事人，對於有效性具利害關係之專利權人及舉發人，無法就其事實於程序中直接爭執。為解決舉發撤銷程序之冗長，我國於2008年成立智慧財產法院及施行智慧財產案件審理法，期能整合行政與民事之訴訟程序，儘速釐清專利行政與民事爭議。惟制度運作迄今衍生出諸多問題，究其原因，實因我國就專利有效性問題未擺脫行政事件之枷鎖，亦未採行兩造當事人對立之訴訟程序。相較於此，美國於2011年施行AIA法及建立PTAB，賦予USPTO全新角色，亦使當事人能透過類似司法制度之兩造當事人對立程序，解決專利有效性及其衍生之更正議題，進而有助於侵權訴訟之進行。本文檢視美國PTAB程序及比較我國智慧財產法院運作，並以專利權侵害、有效性與更正程序之交錯為討論核心。

關鍵字

專利 ； 專利權侵害 ； 專利無效 ； 更正 ； 智慧財產法院 ； 專利訴訟

並列摘要

Nowadays enormous investments for research and development are necessary to survive in a competitive market. Proper protection for inventions and an enforceable legal mechanism with regard to patent rights thus needs to be considered, since patent law provides the ＂first-mover advantage＂ to spur innovation in every technological field. Taiwan's patent legal framework was modeled after German law, in particular the bifurcation (or double-track, ＂Trennungsprinzip＂) system of administrative (validity) and civil (infringement) proceedings. Accordingly, disputes over validity are administrative matters governed by administrative proceedings, and issues of patent infringement have to be determined in the civil action. Unlike the inter partes invalidation procedure, for those who wish to invalidate a patent granted by Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO), only the ex parte revocation procedure is available and the TIPO is always the accused party to the proceedings. Since strong need was felt to establish effective adjudication proceedings in IP fields, in 2008 the IP Court was established and the IP Adjudication Act was passed in Taiwan. However, it seems that the goal of establishing an effective and efficient judicial proceeding has not been fully achieved. By comparison, the US Congress passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011 which laid the foundation for a new adjudicatory body at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The AIA established the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) which provides a judicial and inter partes proceeding. Since the issues over validation and reissue of patents can be resolved in an efficient way provided by the PTAB, the patent rights can be effectively enforced in the civil action. The purpose of this article is to analyze the operation of the PTAB in the USA and the IP Court in Taiwan, particularly focusing on the interaction among the proceedings of invalidation and amendment of patent right and infringement lawsuits.

並列關鍵字

patent ； patent infringement ； invalidation of patent ； amendment of patent right ； intellectual property court ； patent litigation

參考文獻

李素華（2010），〈僱傭關係下發明權益之研究：以我國專利法為中心〉，《臺大法學論叢》，39卷1期，頁1-70。

劉國讚（2011），〈論專利侵害訴訟中對專利無效抗辯之更正〉，《萬國法律》，178期，頁13-25。

李素華（2016），〈民事法院自為判斷專利有效性與加速解決紛爭之迷思：從最高法院一○四年度台上字第四○七號民事判決談起〉，《月旦裁判時報》，43期，頁31-43。

李素華（2019），〈臺灣專利侵權訴訟之實務現況：崩壞與亟待重生的智慧財產生態系統（Ecosystem）〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，289期，頁124-146。

林洲富（2017），〈管轄競合與優先管轄之適用〉，《月旦法學教室》，173期，頁15-17。