美國專利權濫用原則之發展與現況實證研究 ──以聯邦巡迴上訴法院成立後為中心

Abstract

專利權濫用（Patent Misuse）乃是被控侵權人之免責抗辯事由。美國聯邦最高法院於20世紀上半葉建立本原則時，清楚表明應以專利法基本原則（patent policy）作為是否濫用之判斷標準。1982年聯邦巡迴上訴法院（C.A.F.C.）成立，開創全新道路，在Virginia Panel案確立兩階段判斷標準，第二階段採用競爭法之合理原則判斷有無反競爭效果，以認定是否構成非當然違法類型之專利權濫用。2010年Princo案，C.A.F.C.再度壓縮專利權濫用之存在空間。依本文對美國法院判決調查統計結果，自1982年以來當事人主張專利權濫用抗辯的案件數目並不多，其中獲判成立的案件更只有9件，其中5件出現在C.A.F.C.以外之上訴法院針對當然違法類型之判決。C.A.F.C.採納合理原則之二階段判準，看似相當持平，但實際適用上C.A.F.C卻格外嚴峻，至今尚無任何案件通過本判斷標準而構成專利權濫用。惟2015年最高法院Kimble v. Marvel案再度確認專利權濫用之存在價值，至少在當然違法類型，專利權濫用原則將會繼續存在。

Patent misuse is a defense claimed by the alleged infringer. The U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine in the first half of the twentieth century and clarified that it should be determined by patent policy. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (C.A.F.C.) was established and opened a brand-new way. C.A.F.C. set up the “two-part test” in Virginia Panel v. Mac Panel and the second part applied the “rule of reason” adopted from antitrust law to determine whether the behavior at issue constitutes per se illegal. In Princo Corp. v. ITC in 2010, C.A.F.C. narrowed the scope of the patent misuse doctrine again. According to the empirical research of the U.S. court decisions, the cases in which either party claims patent misuse defense are rare. The total number of cases in which the defense succeeded amounts to only 9, and 5 among them are judged by the other courts of appeals instead of the C.A.F.C.. The “rule of reason” in “two-part test” which C.A.F.C. applies seems unbiased, yet it is extremely rigorous. There’s no case passes this test and thus constitutes patent misuse so far. Notably, in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court reconfirmed the value of patent misuse in Kimble v. Marvel, and at least in the per se illegal category, patent misuse doctrine will keep on existing.