美國專利爭訟三大制度─兼論臺灣科技公司應對策略

Three Institutions Of U.S. Patent Litigation─The Adaptive Strategies Of Taiwan’s Technology Companies in the United States.

王玫茵(Mei-Yin Wang)

指導教授 ： 陳顯武

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.10945

摘要

美國是目前全球最大的經濟與商業體系，擁有龐大的商機與市場，同時擁有最完備的專利法規與司法審查系統，使得美國成為高科技產業進行專利爭訟的主要戰場。在美國專利相關制度下，專利權人與涉嫌侵權廠商主要的三個攻擊防禦地點，包含美國專利商標局、美國聯邦法院與美國國際貿易委員會。
美國專利商標局經由發明人向其提出專利申請，而職司專利權的審查與核駁相關工作。美國於2011年9月16日頒布《Leahy-Smith美國發明法》，堪稱為美國專利法近六十年以來最大幅度之修正。專利法修正後，保留現有單方複審程序、以多方複查取代多方複審程序，同時新增獲證後複查程序。預期可增加第三人利用美國專利商標局程序挑戰已獲證專利有效性之機會。
美國國際貿易委員會為一獨立準司法機關，掌管貿易相關事務並擁有廣泛的調查權力。於專利侵權案件中，國際貿易委員會得依據關稅法337條之邊境保護措施規定，於產品進口時使用不公平行為或不公平競爭方法時，經原告申請，對涉嫌專利權侵害之產品進行調查，並對違反不公平競爭之產品簽發排除命令與暫停及停止銷售命令，禁止相關產品進入美國境內銷售。禁止涉嫌侵權產品進入美國市場，國際貿易委員會之救濟較為迅速且全面，為箝制競爭廠商、脅迫對造進行和解強而有力的手段。
美國聯邦法院為美國專利訴訟最重要的戰場，於聯邦法院中，專利權人得藉由聯邦訴訟程序同時獲得金錢損害賠償，與封殺對造產品於美國境內銷售的禁制令。美國聯邦法院訴訟程序與台灣法制度懸殊，證據開示程序、證人詢問之制度亦較台灣審判程序繁瑣，並且美國律師費用昂貴，平均一個案件律師費180萬美元，龐大的訴訟與律師費用對台灣廠商而言誠屬一大負擔。因此惟有深入了解美國相關審判程序才能在專利訴訟中獲得致勝的談判籌碼。
本研究以我國高科技公司之立場出發，藉由研讀國內外相關的文獻學說與相關資料，試圖建立「美國專利爭訟之三大制度」流程架構，並以此流程規畫出各階段的應對策略，在以此應對策略為基礎，同時運用所選擇之實際案例，在理論與實務間來回穿梭，佐證此應對策略之可行。公司內部也應及早建立面對訴訟的防範機制與標準操作程序(SOP) ，期許能對身處激烈競爭與致力開拓跨國市場的國內業者有所助益。

關鍵字

美國專利商標局 ； 多方複查程序 ； 獲證後複查程序 ； 美國國際貿易委員會 ； 關稅法337條 ； 禁制令 ； 美國聯邦法 ； 證據開示程序

並列摘要

As the greatest economy and business in the world, the U.S. is not only a huge market with booming opportunities but also a main field of patent litigation for high-tech industry with its comprehensive patent law and judicial review system. In the U.S. patent-related system, the three main sites where the patent owner and the alleged infringing company attack and defend include the United States Patent Trademark Office (USPTO), the US Federal Court (Federal Court), and the US International Trade Commission (ITC).
Inventors submit patent applications to USPTO, and it then in charge with the examination-related work. “Leahy-Smith America Invents Act” (abbreviated AIA), promulgated on September 16th 2011, is the biggest amendment of the U.S. patent law in the past six decades. The amendment retains the Ex Parte Reexamination, replaces the Inter Partes Reexamination with Inter Partes Review, and adds Post-Grant Review. As a result, the chance for a third party to challenge the validity of issued patents by means of the USPTO proceedings is expected to rise.
ITC is a quasi-judicial Federal agency, which is in charge with affairs relevant to trades and has a broad power of investigation. In patent infringement cases, according to Article 337 of the Tariff Act, the border protection measures, ITC is allowed to investigate the allegedly infringing product under the application of the patentee when the product adopts unfair acts or methods of competition during import. ITC is also entitled to issue exclusion order and cease and desist order to prohibit sales of related products into the U.S. To block the entry of the allegedly infringing product into the U.S. market, ITC offers a more comprehensive and rapid way to clamp competitions and force reconciliations.
The U.S. Federal Court is the most important field in American patent litigation. In Federal Court, the patentee is able to obtain monetary compensations and injunctions that ban the sales of infringing products at the same time. The U.S. Federal Court is different from the Taiwan Law System. In comparison to the Taiwanese system, proceedings of discovery and cross-examination are more complicated in the U.S. system. In addition, the American attorneys’ fees are expensive; an average case costs around $1.8 million. The huge litigation fee and attorneys’ fee are a great burden to Taiwanese companies. Hence, understanding the relevant judicial proceedings in the U.S. is the only way to get bargaining chips in litigation cases.
The starting point of this study is the stance of high-tech companies in Taiwan. By reviewing existing literatures and relevant theories, this study draws on the structure of the three main institutions of patent litigation so as to find out the coping strategy in each stage, evidenced by practical cases. The corporate should try to establish a preventive mechanism and standard operating procedures (SOP) to deal with patent litigations.

並列關鍵字

USPTO ； Inter Parte Review ； Post-Grant Review ； ITC ； Article 337 of the Tariff Act ； Cease and Desist Order ； Federal Court ； Discovery

參考文獻

洪志勳(2005) 。〈台灣液晶電視產業的專利訴訟策略—以美國國際貿易委員會(ITC)為例〉，《科技法律透析》，17卷、3期，頁21~26。台北：元照。

馮震宇(1995)。〈美國專利訴訟制度與程序要件〉，《資訊法務透析》，第7卷8期，頁24，台北：財團法人資訊工業策進會科技法律中心。

羅昌發(1991)。〈論美國貿易法對智慧財產之邊境保護─關稅法337條款之過去、現在與未來〉，《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，卷21，1期，頁293~326，台北：國立臺灣大學。

張宇樞(2009)。《美國專利訴訟實務》，三版，台北：經濟部智慧財產局。

經濟部智慧財產局(2013)。《美國專利訴訟教戰手冊進階版》。台北：經濟部智慧財產局。