技術專利權評價暨損害賠償之研究－以工研院智慧財產權營運模式為例

Abstract

「專利評價」與「損害賠償」看似係一個概念，其實是兩個概念。兩者有其共通之部份，但卻並不完全相同。本文更以實證分析，評價主要重點在於該專利權運用所創造之未來價值。損害賠償則是過去式，當專利權受侵害時係以填補為限。 本文以原告工研院之兩個判決，智慧財產法院99年民專訴第156號判決(以下稱案例一)及高等法院94年智上字第2號(以下稱案例二)為研究案例，以實證分析損害賠償係針對過去已發生之時間進行專利權價值評價。事實上案例一與二損害賠償所計算出來金額僅300萬元與200萬元，這與工研院的期待2仟餘萬元及400萬元有很大的落差。本文從判決實證研究證明前述的看法是正確的。 反過來，工研院經由技術創新與產業化已建立100多個具差異化功能的創新技術平台，鏈結上中下游產業或國際領導型企業合作、快速拚圖，開發新產品，捕捉1~2年內之商機。並持續深化技術前瞻性與跨領域技術整合外，更以技術移轉、智權加值服務等，並設置開放實驗室及育成中心，積極推動及育成新創公司，加速產業技術開發及孕育新興高科技產業。 在智慧財產權營運模式上面其實是比較成功，包括新創事業、授權創新產品、專利契作及專利組合授權等商業模式，所能創造之產業價值更為深遠。例如促成廠商研發與生產投資，以及扶植創造新產業。 本文並以量化分析工研院某一基盤所技術與專利授權契約627件，元件技術成熟與授權每件平均金額等幾乎完全成正比關係，具有極大之正相關。元件技術成熟度7，五年每件平均授權金額高達230萬元。結果驗證了專利實施授權，側重於實施發展的未來價值與接近市場價值展現。 本文之研究方法包括四大部份: 一、文獻的整理與分析比較; 二、法學實證分析，以智財法院、地方法院、高等法院侵害專利權(原告工研院)判決為本研究分析範圍。三、量化分析，以工研院某一基盤所近五年技術授權契約為研究標的進行技術移轉成果與元件成熟度之相關性分析; 四、質性深度訪談五位實務工作者(包含智財法院庭長、產業智權顧問、研究機構智權經理、新創公司資深財務長及知識科技公司鑑價師)。 透過上述實證研究，本文發現「專利評價」與「損害賠償」，此兩者在一般人看似無差異，但其評價之出發點卻是不同的。本文亦以工研院的判決及質性訪談驗證了，它們的範疇是不相同的。 綜上研究分析，本文建議工研院仍以創新的智財權營運模式做為主軸，至於損害賠償或訴訟，則係扮演補強執行發揮專利權價值。另建議政府亦應思考改變目前對研究機構評價其專利權應用價值的方式，才能真正的展現出研究機構所創造專利權之潛力價值和深遠影響。

Although “Patent valuation” and “damage compensation” may seem like one concept, they are actually different from each other. Some commonalities do exist between them, yet they are not exactly the same. This empirical study comments that the focus of patent valuation is the future revenues that are created by its exploitation. On the other hand, damage compensation deals with matters that happened in the past and is limited to compensating a patentee’s damages in a patent infringement case. This paper empirically analyzes that damage compensation means evaluating patent values in the past, with research on two lawsuits filed by Industrial Technology Research Institute (“ITRI”), which are No.156 of 2010 first-instance civil case regarding the Patent Act in Taiwan Intellectual Property Court (“Case I”), and No. 2 of 2005 second-instance civil cases regarding the Patent Act in Taiwan High Court (“Case II”). The awarded compensations consist of 3 million NT dollars in “Case I” and 2 million NT dollars in “Case II”, respectively, and these numbers are significantly below ITRI’s expectation of over 20 million NT dollars in Case I and 4 million NT dollars in Case II. These award judgments verify the accuracy of the perspective expressed above. Through technological innovation and industrialization, ITRI has established more than one hundred innovative technology platforms that possess differentiative functions to: (i) boost cooperation among the upstream, midstream and downstream industries, among international leading enterprises, or among those with various resources and expertise, and to (ii) develop new products and capture business opportunities of within one to two years. In addition, ITRI has been endeavoring to strengthen the integration between forward-looking technology and interdisciplinary technology. By means of transferring technology, providing value-added IP services, setting up open-labs and incubation center, and actively promoting and nurturing start-ups, ITRI has been expediting development of industrial technology and cultivating emerging high-tech industries. The operation modes of intellectual property rights, such as creating start-ups, licensing inventive products, contracting patent generation, and licensing patent portfolios, are relatively more successful. Such modes also provide profound industrial value in facilitating enterprises’ investments on research, development and production, and in fostering emerging industries. From quantitatively analyzing 627 technology and patent license agreements from one laboratory in ITRI, it is concluded that the technology readiness level (“TRL”) is directly proportional to the average license fee per agreement, with strong positive correlations. With a TRL of 7, the average license fee per agreement in five years reaches 2.3 million NT dollars. This verifies that the exploitation of licensed patents places particular emphasis on values from future development and values from its demand in the market. Four research methods are utilized in this paper: (i) literature collection, analysis and comparison, (ii) empirical legal analysis, studying infringement cases in Taiwan Intellectual Property Court, district courts, and high courts with ITRI as the plaintiff, (iii) quantitative analysis through studying technology license agreements from one laboratory in ITRI in recent five years to reveal the relationship between technology transfer results and TRL, and (iv) conducting in-depth interviews for qualitative research with five practitioners, including a chief judge of Taiwan Intellectual Property Court, an intellectual property rights advisor from industry, an IP manager in a research institute, a senior chief financial officer of a start-up, and an appraiser in an information technology company. Through the above empirical study, it is concluded that “patent valuation” and “damage compensation” may appear to be the same to the general public, but they differ in their starting points of valuation. Additionally, this paper points out their difference in scope, as evidenced by court decisions of ITRI’s cases and by qualitative interviews. In summary, this paper suggests that ITRI take the inventive operation modes of intellectual property rights as its main focus, supplemented by litigation or damage compensation, to reinforce patents. In addition, the government shall consider altering the current method of assessment towards patent exploitation of research institutes in order to fulfill potential values of patents and far-reaching influences of research institutes.