智財法院專利民事案件判決可預測性之實證研究

Abstract

判決可預測性乃一常見法律概念，但相關研究卻付之闕如。我國自2008年7月1日成立智慧財產法院，為一專業法院，具有相應之配套審理法與受過專業訓練之法官及輔助人員，判決理應較為科學化且具有可預測性。本文藉由質性訪談與量化統計之實證研究之方式，檢視智財法院之專利民事案件判決可預測性，並分析影響可預測性的因素，以提供智財法院及其他法院作為提升判決可預測性之參考。 本研究質性訪談結果顯示，受訪律師認為智財法院專利民事案件的判決相當可預測，但只有判決結果、判決理由較能預測，損害賠償金額則難以預測。智財法院成立之後，程序可預測性亦大為增加，不再有程序空轉的情形。大部分律師皆給予判決可預測性正面評價，但因目前專利權人於智財法院訴訟之勝訴率過低，亦有律師認為若從此統計角度認為智財法院判決具有可預測性，則對是否給予正面評價持保留態度。主要影響判決可預測性的因素有法官實行闡明權的方式、技審官是否介入問案、引證案的強弱、對造律師的表現、調查證據的內容等等。但技審官過度介入可能會造成違反當事人進行主義、論理主義等民事訴訟基本原則；目前法制上並未要求技審官一二審需分流及同一專利的行政庭與民事庭需配置不同技審官，將造成損害當事人審級利益的疑慮。本研究亦對專利權人勝訴率過低之原因做出分析，並提出可改善智財法院判決可預測性的實務操作方法。 本研究量化統計結果顯示，「法官」為影響判決可預測性最重要的因素，其次為「引證案」與「本案程序進行方式」，「技審官」則排名第三，其影響程度並不如外界所想像得重要，而「對造律師」的影響力最低。藉由費雪檢定得知，有經驗的律師有75~95%的機率準確預測判決結果；律師是否能準確預測判決結果與其承辦案件數量有正相關。統計結果顯示損害賠償金額的確難以預測。智財法院成立以來，因為技審官的設置，的確大大降低採用鑑定報告的比例。

Predictability is a common law concept, but there is no related research in Taiwan. The Intellectual Property Court (IP Court) was established in compliance with the Intellectual Property Organization Act promulgated on March 28, 2007, which intend to adhere to the ideals of creativity, professionalism and justice to provide high-level IPR protection under a new litigation system. Therefore, the predictability of patent litigation in the Intellectual Property Court should be high, and this research will use empirical analysis method to see whether it is predictable from experienced patent attorney’s prospective. The result of qualitative research practice shows that the patent litigation in the IP Court is quite predictable. After IP Court established, the procedure is well organized, which improves the predictability. Though the “result” (win or lose) is predictable, the “damages” is hard to predict. The major factors affect the predictability are “the judge’s attitude and questions”, “the questions from Technical Examination Officers”, “the effects of prior arts”, “the performance of lawyers”. Sometimes the Technical Examination Officers may ask improper questions, and violates the principle of Civil Procedures, which decrease the predictability. Patentee’s winning rate in the IP Court is relatively low, thus this research analyze the reasons of Patentee’s low-winning rate, and tried to propose some suggestions to improve the quality and predictability of patent litigation in the IP Court. Through the quantitative research, this research discovers that the most import factor of predictability is “judges”, than the second are “prior arts” and “procedure”. The effects of “Technical Examination Officers” are less import than the above factors, but is more important that the “opposite attorney”. The Fisher’s Exact Test shows that the experienced lawyers can correctly predict the result of patent litigation with 75~95%, and the predict ability is positively related to the attorney’s experiences (amount of cases). The qualitative research also shows that after the IP court established, the judge tend to adjust Technical Examination Officer’s opinion instead of relied on the appraisal report from the Parties.