台灣維修條款立法芻議-比較歐、美案例與立法

智慧財產作為現代商業活動中相當重要的一環，除了著作、商標外，設計的重要性也漸漸凸顯。專利制度是國家刺激經濟、競爭與技術發展之重要「政策工具」。專利制度誕生以來，無疑是以刺激技術發展為主要追求。惟隨著現代社會發展，漸有保護國內產業與消費者利益之論述出現。近年在汽車產業，原廠車商除了利用發明或新型專利，保護自家品牌的研發成果外，漸漸也有利用消費者於維修車輛時「回復車輛出廠原始外觀的心理」，以「設計」保護車輛的外觀。基於此種情形在汽車產業中，最為「副廠」零件製造、分銷業者所期待者，則是所謂的「維修條款」（Repair Clause）。維修條款（Repair Clause）之目的，在符合特定條件下，免除提供維修、更換車輛外觀碰撞零件，以恢復車輛原始外觀，可能產生的設計專利侵權責任。而這與多國現行專利法制、實務有所扞格。我國自2019年帝寶車燈案之前，學界、實務界除偶有零星文獻探討外，並未見針對「維修條款」之熱烈討論。似仍處於商業上蓬勃討論之狀態，雖智慧財產局與立法院已舉辦數場公聽會，集結多位專家學者就此一議題提出各國立法例，惟相關學術論文尚未多見。本文先從汽車產業的發展史與對國家的經濟意義出發，分析維修條款的相關法律爭議，並描繪出針對此一議題正反雙方論點。再依序統整美國、歐洲兩大經濟體的相關實務案例與立法例，分析我國有無維修條款的立法需求。結論方面，本文認為我國汽車產業之現狀，確實以外觀零件之製造與出口為主，是我國經濟的一重要產業。並在文末試圖提出修法建議，以供參考。

關鍵字

汽車產業；維修免責條款；專利侵權；設計專利；原廠；副廠；碰撞件

並列摘要

Despite Copyright and Trademark, as an important role in modern business, the importance of design become more and more crucial. The Patent system is a “policy tool” for a country to stimulate economic, competition and technological development. There is no doubt that since the birth of patent, the main pursuit is to stimulate technological development. However, with the development of modern society, the discussion of protecting the interests of domestic industries and consumers has gradually emerged. Recently, in the automotive industry, besides using Invention or Utility Patents to protect the R D achievements of their own brands, OEMs have gradually protected the vehicle's exterior appearance by "Design", which takes advantage of consumers' mentality to "restore the original appearance of the vehicle" when repairing. Based on this situation, in the automotive industry, what mostly expected by "Non-OEM" manufacturers and distributors is the so-called "Repair Clause". The purpose of the “Repair Clause” is to exempt, under certain conditions, the provision of repair and replacement of vehicle exterior crash parts to restore the original appearance of the vehicle, which may result in design patent infringement. However, it is inconsistent with the current patent legal systems and practices in many countries. In Taiwan, before the “case of DEPO head lamp” in 2019, there were few discussions in the academia, also has been no heated discussion on the "Repair Clause". Although the Intellectual Property Bureau and the Legislative Yuan have held several public hearings, gathering a number of experts and scholars to propose national legislation on this topic, there are not many related academic papers. This article starts from the history of the development of the automotive industry and its economic significance to the country, analyzes the legal disputes related to repair clause, and describes the pros and cons of this issue. Then, to integrate in order regarding relevant practical cases and legislative cases of the two major economies of the United States and Europe, and analyzes the legal needs of whether there should have a Repair Clause in Taiwan. In conclusion, this paper believes that the current situation of Taiwan’s automotive industry is indeed dominated by the manufacture and export of exterior parts, which is an important industry to Taiwan’s economy. At the end of the article, I try to put forward suggestions for revision of the law for reference.