美國法院判定合理權利金之基準研究：以Georgia Pacific十五項要素分析

Abstract

美國法院以假設協商法計算合理權利金時，最常適用Georgia-Pacific案中所列的15項要素做為判斷準則。其中較為重要的是第1個要素，即已經存在的權利金這一項。其他要素雖均為法院判斷合理權利金的標準，但會依據不同案件而有不同的適用方式。由於假設協商法是以「假設權利人與侵權人在第一次侵權時所可能談判出的權利金」來做為損害賠償的基準，而既然是「假設」，即表示這些要素及證據均是後設，是否能真正反映出侵權當時專利價值也產生許多質疑。 本文認為此法像法院判斷合理權利金方式的一個解套方案，近乎假設可以把所有可能考量的因素以及資訊均統合判斷。也是因為這樣的性質，很難爭執法院判斷結果的不合理性，最多只能質疑相較於所失利益法則，假設協商法計算合理權利金時，法院具有更廣的獨斷空間。有鑑於法院在適用這15項要素的多樣性常造成研究者有霧裡看花的困擾，故本文擬將這15項要素從微觀角度分析其內涵以及其他可能考量的因素，將要素依性質分為基線要素(基線比率)與調整要素(議價實力)，再從宏觀角度將幾種代表性的適用方法做一類型化的整理，探討這15項要素對法院在最後判斷合理權利金時所扮演的角色，並嘗試搭配Nash談判解(NBS)指出這些要素重要性的順序。在了解此15項要素在案例適用的同時，亦討論法院在適用方法上可能遭受的質疑。

When US courts deploy the hypothetical negotiation test to measure reasonable royalties as damages, they often refer to the 15 prong test in the Georgia-Pacific case for their adjudication guidelines. The first one factor, which is the amount of any pre-existing royalties, is universally agreed to have the greatest persuasive impact on the Court’s decisions. The other factors are with different applications of the guidelines resulting from the unique factual circumstances of each case. Because the hypothetical negotiation method relies on “assuming the royalties which the hypothetical licensor and the infringer would have agreed upon at the moment of the first infringement”, to serve as the basis for determining the measure of damages, and since it is “hypothetical”, it means that these factors and evidence thereof are naturally ex facto, so there are legitimate questions about whether these factors can accurately convey the patent rights’ value at the time of infringement or not. This method permits integrative consideration of many possible royalty calculation techniques and information before reaching an informed judgment. So it is very difficult to argue that the Court’s decisional results are unreasonable, rather one is left to argue about matters such as lost profits. The multifaceted nature of judicial applications of these 15 factors can result in commentators inability to see the forest for the trees, so this paper focuses on microanalysis of these 15 factors with respect to their evidences and purposes, grouping them into baseline factors(offering the baseline rate) and adjustment factors(bargaining power), as well as a meta-analysis of several representative methods considered in an integrated fashion from main baseline aspect, to discuss the influence of each of these 15 factors on the Court’s judgment. This paper also attempts to determine the relative importance of each factor with cases and economic analysis of Nash bargaining solution, and discusses the possible critiques of the Court’s deployment.