美國專利輔助侵權實務發展與因應

Abstract

專利權是目前產業發展與競爭中最重要的課題，專利權人的獨占權除了可以使競爭者在研發上付出較高之成本外，並可拖延競爭者進入市場的時間，由此可見專利侵權訴訟已變為企業用來打擊對手與爭奪市場的一種有效機制，而成為企業經營時的一項不確定的風險。美國法院認為輔助侵權的制度對於保護方法專利扮演一個相當重要的角色，提供專利權人一個有效的機制去防止第三人提供某一物品去協助他人去侵害方法專利，而該第三人卻因未實施該方法專利而無法成為直接侵權人，為避免此漏洞，即有專利間接侵權制度產生。專利間接侵權制度起源於美國，在美國法上，專利侵權可分為直接侵權與間接侵權，間接侵權又可分為誘引侵權與輔助侵權，其分別規定在美國專利法第271條第b項、第c項當中。本研究主要著重在分析近期美國有關輔助侵權的判決，整理歸納其中法院所表示的構成要件與法律見解，並針對其中之異同進行比較與分析。由於我國產業型態多以代工為主，並以美國為主要銷售市場，在零組件製造或交易過程中，可能就會構成輔助侵權，希望藉由對於美國法院判決之研究可以對我國產業於美國面對專利權人輔助侵權指控時，能提供相關因應策略與足資對抗之實務依據，進而減少因輔助侵權而產生的損失，並進一步提供我國產業在營運策略上之參考及建議。

Patent right is the most important subject for industrial development and competition. The monopoly right of patentee not only can make competitors pay higher cost in R&D, but also waste more time to enter the market. Patent infringement has become an effective mechanism for companies to battle business rivals and conquer markets. Consequently, patent infringement has already become an uncertain risk in business operations.

Courts have often noted that the doctrine of contributory infringement plays a crucial role in protecting process patents. The doctrine provides an effective mechanism for a patentee to shut down a single party who aides many to infringe a process patent by supplying material to practice the process, but cannot be held accountable as a direct infringer since it does not practice the process. The patent indirect infringement system stems from the USA. The patent infringement can be separated into two parts, one is direct infringement and the other is indirect infringement. The indirect infringement also can be separated into induced infringement and contributory infringement which is defined respectively in the Article 271 item b and item c of USA United States Code Title 35.

This study mainly focus on analysis of recent U.S Court Judgments about contributory patent infringement, This study not only collates and summarizes the legal elements and legal opinion from U.S courts, but also makes a detailed comparison and analysis between their Similarities and Differences.

Without knowing the contributory infringement, Taiwan industry may not avoid the risk of patent infringement liability claimed by the patent owner. It is hoped that the relevant corresponding strategies and a practical basis with sufficient opposition could be provided when Taiwan industry need to confront the contributory patent infringement litigation in the future and also mitigate the impact brought by contributory infringement so as to reduce the huge lost incurred by the contributory infringement litigation. This study will also provide several suggestions and references with regard to management and strategy for Taiwan industry in managing business operations.