美國專利跨境侵權之研究-以間接侵權為中心

在全球化浪潮席捲下，涵括國內外市場的全球分工商業模式漸漸變成常態。過去各國均謹遵專利權屬地原則，不輕易將專利權效力擴張及於他國。然而這樣的態度，顯然已不足應付有意規避侵權責任之行為人，利用跨國間的商業模式輕易地躲避法律追訴。比較法上，美、英、德等國均對跨境侵權議題有所涉足，而跨境侵權的基礎係由間接侵權發展而來，類型上亦有相似之處，因此本文在研究間接侵權及跨境侵權的立法建議及實務判決多有著墨。美國在此議題上較早有相關研究，除了訂定美國專利法第271條(f)項，近年實務更例外的承認專利權人可以就其境外的所失利益請求賠償，因此我國產業在美國進行專利佈局甚至是設廠時，也直接或間接的受到該立法的牽制。我國智慧財產局於民國98及106年間均有針對間接侵權之進行討論，在尚未立法下，亦多有相關之立法建議。另外，在搜尋跨境侵權之相關判決時，發現法院案件數量極少且仍相當地謹守屬地主義。因此，本文認為我國在處理該議題上或可效法英、德等國，交由法院以法律解釋之方式個案判斷，並謹慎地以侵權行為是否影響到國內市場作為評估。

關鍵字

專利；間接侵權；跨境侵權；美國專利法第271條第(f)項

並列摘要

Under the wave of globalization, a global business model involving domestic and foreign markets, has become normally. In the past, the patent right was territorially limited and thus only applied to activities within the country. However, such territorial rights did not map onto the reality of many infringements, such as infringers using multinational corporation to flee from legal prosecution. Compared with other countries, United States, Britain, and Germany have all concerned about the issue of extraterritorial infringement and because the issue of extraterritorial infringement is derived from indirect infringement which are similar to extraterritorial infringement, this article will focus on Taiwan’s and other countries’ legislative suggestions and judgments of indirect infringement and extraterritorial infringement. Except the provisions of Section 35 of U.S.C.§271(f), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that U.S. patent holders are able to recoup profits that were lost overseas from domestic infringement. Therefore, when Taiwan companies trying to license patents and establish factories may be directly or indirectly constrained by U.S. decision. Through there is no relevant regulations about indirect infringement, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office still held discussions on indirect infringements and there were many relevant legislative suggestions from 2009 to 2017. However, on the other side, there are few cases discussing about extraterritorial infringement and the courts seem still adopt territoriality principle. Therefore, this article suggests that while dealing with this issue, the court may follow the examples of Britain, Germany, etc., determine case-by-case, and carefully evaluate whether the domestic market is being affected.