是耶?非耶?---智財權人對未使用其授權技術之標的收取權利金

Abstract

擴張權利範圍之智財行使行為在各國競爭規範上均傾向給予負面評價，然而美國法 院近60 年以來，對於智財權人就未使用其授權技術之標的收取權利金之行為，反而並 未因其具有擴張智財權利範圍之疑慮而全面給予負面評價，反而先將「志願性強制包裹 授權」從中加以區分，認定不構成專利濫用；近年來更對於強制包裹授權全面降低其構 成專利濫用之可能。然而在競爭法方面美國卻並未出現相應之發展。因此美國法院在何 種情況下傾向認定智財權人對未使用其授權技術之標的收取權利金係為合法，就成為非 常值得進一步探討的問題。本計畫希望透過實證研究方式，對於美國相關判決全面進行 量化調查統計，希望能夠找出影響法院對於本類型行為違法性判斷的影響因素，以便啟 發吾人對其進行規範性判斷時，可以掌握更適當的分析架構與判斷基準。

Broadening the scope of intellectual property rights is usually deemed as anticompetitive across countries. The U.S. courts, however, consistently consider part of earning royalty from technologies that are licensed but not in use by the licensee as legitimate. They at first in 1950s immune package license that the licensee voluntarily accepts from the purview of patent misuse. In 2005 the Federal Circuit further declared that for package license to be held as patent misuse, it shall normally be analyzed under rule of reason rather than the per se rule, and most of the time it will not be considered as misuse in essence. On the other hand, however, we did not see the same trend emerge in antitrust law. This bifurcated and conflicting attitudes on the same type of conducts is thus worthy of close examination. This proposal is planning to engage an empirical survey on all the judicial decisions dealing with this style of royalty collecting agreement. In this approach the applicant hopes to find out the factors that lead the court determine to line up with one side of the above instead of the others.