美國專利法誘引侵權之主觀要件演變—以Global-Tech案為中心

Abstract

近六十年來，美國專利法中誘引侵權主觀要件之判斷標準在實務上一直有所爭議。聯邦巡迴上訴法院（Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit）對於誘引侵權主觀要件之認定始終未能統一，在1990年甚至曾出現聯邦巡迴上訴法院在一年中前後兩個案件所採納的標準完全不同的矛盾。直到美國聯邦最高法院於2011年5月作出Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB. S.A.一案之判決，這個存在已久的問題才得到解決。美國聯邦最高法院在Global-Tech案中重新確認對於誘引侵權主觀要件採取「特殊主觀」的要求，以誘引侵權人須具備誘使他人直接侵權的主觀為必要。而對於主觀程度的判斷標準，除肯認應以「明知」作為誘引侵權之主觀程度外，更引進美國刑事法的「惡意視而不見」的概念，說明惡意視而不見亦得視為一種「明知」，並對於惡意視而不見的判斷提出兩個要件：被告須主觀上相信本案關鍵事實的存在有高度可能性；以及被告採取故意的行為以避免得知該事實，而這個判斷要件也就是「惡意視而不見」與聯邦巡迴上訴法院在本案中提出的「故意漠視」最大的不同之處。對於最高法院所建立的誘引侵權主觀要件判斷標準應如何適用於個案中，本文觀察在Global-Tech案之後下級法院對於誘引侵權主觀要件的判斷，發現原告產品有專利標示、被告持續監控競爭對手的產品及專利、原告曾寄發警告信函、原告曾提出授權要約以及被告抄襲原告產品等事實要素皆足以讓法院認為被告主觀上相信有高度可能性構成侵權；而若有前述情形而被告卻消極地不自為侵權與否或專利是否有效的調查，即可能被法院判定構成惡意視而不見。對於被告而言，若要主張欠缺誘引侵權的主觀，除了提出不侵權或專利無效律師意見書證明自己善意相信不侵權或系爭專利無效外，向美國專利商標局提起系爭專利的複審程序同樣也是法院採信的有力證據。

What state of mind is required for defendant to be held liable for inducement of patent infringement had been in dispute for nearly 60 years. During this period of time, Federal Circuit had never reached a uniformly accepted standard for intent element of induced infringement, moreover, in 1990, the Circuit even made two contracdictory decisions on this issue within 3 months and led to a 16-year of splitting in lower courts.This long existed dispute was finally resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB. S.A.in May, 2011. In the decision, the Supreme Court decided that a specific intent to induce infringement was required, and the standard for that intent should be “knowledge”. The Court further introduced the “willful blindness” standard in criminal law to patent law, explaining that knowledge could be established through showing of willful blindness whilst holding that the standard had two basic requirements: (1) the defendant must subjectively believe that there is a high probability that a fact exists; and (2) the defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact. In order to understand the application of the standard set forth in Global-Tech in subsequent induced infringement cases, this study reviewed the determination of intent requirement in post-Global-Tech induced infringement decisions. The result shows that lower courts tend to find defendants meet the willful blindness standard if they failed to investigate whether they induced infringement or failed to prove a good-faith belief of the invalidity of the patent, after showing defendant’s subjective belief of a high probability that they induced infringement. In other words, even though there’s no adverse inference rule applies, defendants are almost having an affirmative obligation to investigate as long as the circumstantial evidences showed that they subjectively believe that there’s a high probability that the infringement exists. Finally, this research analyzes the circumstantial evidences that may prove the intent requirement of induced infringement after summarizing the factual elements of each post-Global-Tech case, and proposes litigation strategies for Taiwanese companies when facing inducement of patent infringement claims.