美國專利訴訟對人管轄權—以商業流為中心

Abstract

專利訴訟案件中,不論是哪一國,法院首先會碰到的便是程序問題,而第一 個程序上的問題不外乎就是「受訴法院有無管轄權」。一般而言,各國法律為「屬 地主義」,依美國民事訴訟法,若法院無管轄權,應駁回原告之訴,故外國製造 商若在自己國家製造、銷售疑似侵害美國專利產品,若也沒有經過任何管道將產 品進口進入美國,那麼基本上美國法院應無管轄權,惟因國際貿易頻繁及高科技 產品分工精細,許多外國製造商即便一開始產品主要銷售地並非美國,但經過層 層的交易後,實際最終進口到美國的產品中,可能就包含這些疑似侵害美國專利 的產品,而美國法院透過商業流理論來擴張管轄權取得對外國製造商的管轄權。 尤其是臺灣的高科技產業多為製造商及代工廠商,雖然未在美國設有公司或是與 美國有直接接觸,但其零件產品隨著交易賣給了其他的廠商後,可能因為疑似侵 害美國專利而面對必須要到美國訴訟的狀況,面對此類案件層出不窮,不僅是臺 灣廠商,許多外國廠商也面臨相同的問題。惟美國聯邦最高法院至今對於判斷商 業流理論仍沒有一個一致的看法,也造成下級法院無固定的見解可循的困擾。採 用不同的見解,可能會使得相同的案件有不同的發展,而 CAFC 並無明確表示 採取最高法院兩派中哪方之見解,有自己一套標準,故法院對於商業流標準採取 不同的見解對於臺灣廠商及外國製造商可能造成的影響以及公司面臨類似的訴 訟應採取何種訴訟策略值得進一步探究。本文希望透過整理美國聯邦法院對於對 人管轄見解文獻後,再以量化分析下級審法院 CAFC 對於專利侵權訴訟中商業 流案件的見解,進而了解目前美國法院對於商業流案件的判斷標準為何,並且結 合上述成果與質性研究,對於國外廠商提出適當的訴訟策略以面對未來可能發生 的訴訟。

“Do we have jurisdiction over the claim?” is the procedure question that the court, regardless of which country, will first consider before they enter into trial. In general, a particular system of law belongs to a defined territory, a feature known as the territoriality of law. If the court lacks jurisdiction of the case, the claim shall be dismissed according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus in patent litigation, when the foreign manufacturers make, use, offer to sell, or sell any products that may infringe the US patent in their homeland, without exporting those products into the United State, courts in the USA shall not have jurisdiction over those foreign manufacturers. However, due to the increase in the international trade and the subdivision of manufacturing of high-tech products in the world, those products which may infringe the US patent is likely to be imported into the United State. As a result, the US courts may grant jurisdiction over those foreign manufacturers through the stream of commerce theory. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has yet to reach a consensus on the proper articulation of the stream of commerce theory, resulting in the lower courts having different approaches and views on the issue of the stream of commerce. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit assessed personal jurisdiction premised on the stream of commerce theory based on its own case law. Thus, it is important for Taiwanese and other foreign manufacturers to understand the different approaches of the stream of commerce theory adopted by the courts may result differently on the issue if the foreign manufacturers have to attend the costly and time-consuming lawsuit in the USA. Hence, this article wishes to address the issues of personal jurisdiction premised on the stream of commerce theory by introducing six of stream of commerce cases of the Supreme Court and the case law of CAFC addressing the factors they consider whether the defendants have minimum contact with the court by statistical method. Lastly, this thesis will give recommendations on legal strategies to foreign manufacturers for lawsuit they may have in the USA.