透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.192.71.254
  • 學位論文

我國智慧財產法院與歐洲專利法院(草案)之比較-以專利有效性認定為中心

Comparison of Taiwan IPC and European Patent Court(Draft)-In Terms of Decisions of Patent Validity

指導教授 : 謝銘洋
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


我國智慧財產法制在民國九十七年智慧財產法院成立後,有了重大突破。智慧財產法院專業法院的設計,將與智慧財產相關的民事、刑事、行政案件全數交由智慧財產法院進行審理,其目的在於解決傳統二元訴訟制度所造成訴訟延滯之情況,惟智慧財產法院並不能完全解決實務上所面臨的問題,特別是依照智慧財產案件審理法第十六條,民事法院審理專利有效性之問題,僅具有個案效力之規定,使舊有的問題仍然存續。同一時間,歐洲各國與歐盟對於歐洲專利制度所面臨的整合問題,亦有新的進展。依照歐洲專利公約所授予的歐洲專利,由於沒有統一的法院,並不能做到統一實施,使在歐洲各國的專利權人感到相當大的不便。故在歐洲專利公約與歐盟的討論之下,在最新的草案當中,設計出單一的共同體專利(或稱『歐盟專利』),並設立歐洲專利法院,統一審理共同體專利與歐洲專利所涉及的爭訟。本文係以比較之方式,從歐洲專利法院之制度,再次審視我國審理智慧財產案件之制度,未來應有的修正方向。本文認為,我國智慧財產法院應如同歐洲專利法院,在行政救濟方面,對於專利提起舉發後,若仍有不服,即逕向智慧財產法院民事法院提起確認專利無效訴訟,而以民事訴訟審理專利侵權訴訟與專利無效訴訟,並使專利無效之判決效力具有對世效力。如此,不但法院不需開啟不同訴訟程序處理二件訴訟,當事人亦可於同一訴訟中解決所有問題。

並列摘要


The intellectual property legal system in Taiwan had a major breakthrough after the establishment of Intellectual Property Court in 2008. As a professional court for intellectual property cases, the IPC deal with all kinds of litigation which included civil procedure, criminal procedure, and administrative procedure. The purpose of the construction of the IPC is to resolve the litigation delay that is originated from traditional binary litigation system. However, the problems have not been resolved entirely, especially the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act, Art. 16 which regulated the case by case effect of patent validity made by civil court. In the meanwhile, European countries and the EU have a progress with the integration issues faced by European patent system. According to the EPC, the European Patent cannot be enforced uniformly. It’s inconvenient to the patent holders in Europe. In the latest draft which is discussed by EPC and EU, there will be a single patent called “Community Patent (or EU Patent)” and European Patent Court, which deal with Community Patent and European Patent uniformly. This paper provides comparison of the different systems between Taiwan IPC and European Patent Court; in addition, suggest the future amendment of Taiwan IPC. This paper considers that Taiwan IPC should follow the European Patent Court. On the administrative procedure, after the invalidation procedure, the third party should file a suit to civil court in IPC. The civil court of IPC deals with the litigations of patent infringement and patent validation. Moreover, the effects of judge of patent validity have to be absolute. Not only the court could deal with two litigations in one procedure, but also the parties could resolve the all requirement in the same procedure.

參考文獻


8.謝銘洋(2008),《智慧財產權法》,台北:元照。
17.曾陳明汝(1980),〈歐洲專利公約與歐洲專利制度之研究〉,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,第十卷第1期。
11.經濟部智慧財產局編印(2008),《專利法逐條釋義》,台北:經濟部智慧財產局。
25.盧文祥(2006),〈我國智慧財產法院之理想與實現〉,《政大智慧財產評論》,第4卷第1期。
2.最高法院91年度台上字第1956好判決。

延伸閱讀