美國專利訴訟之保護命令與相關裁定之研究

Abstract

本論文係以美國專利訴訟中保護命令相關裁定之研究分析作為核心。本文首先介紹美國之證據開示程序，由美國聯邦民事訴訟規則之條文內容說明證據開示前之會議、可開示範圍、限制開示範圍之特權，以及專利訴訟之證據開示程序應特別注意開示之內容，接序說明證據開示階段聲請保護命令之規範、並介紹證據開示程序中使用之傳票與密封法院文件之聲請、專利訴訟中特有的禁止代理專利申請答辯以及開示原始碼之方式，使讀者可藉此瞭解專利訴訟證據開示程序的應用層面與操作方式，除美國聯邦法院之訴訟系統外，亦介紹美國國際委員會337調查案之立案流程與國際貿易委員會核發保護命令之特色。實證研究部分整理westlaw資料庫上收錄之2011年美國聯邦法院發出之與保護命令相關之裁定，本文將其分為聲請保護命令、修改保護命令、聲請強制證據開示、聲請撤銷傳票，聲請密封法庭文件、聲請法院制裁，及其他等七類，將所有檢索獲得裁定以表格作簡單介紹，並使用個案分析研究方式，選擇七件代表裁定進一步做深入探討。末段介紹我國智慧財產訴訟上證據蒐集與美國證據開示程序之異同，並由法制體系之根本差異剖析比較秘密保持命令制度與美國保護命令制度。文末整理全文結論並建議我國廠商平時應特別注意管控企業內部文件及員工之訓練，以因應美國專利訴訟之證據開示程序。

The article is mainly dedicated to discuss the protective orders and the related orders during the discovery stage of patent litigation. It introduces the basic characteristics, including pre-discovery conference, the scope of discovery, and the privileges which limit the scope, of discovery system of Patent litigation by looking into the content of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure of the United States. Furthermore, the article identifies the items that should be discovered by the plaintiffs and defendants, with respect to the discovery of patent litigation. It further describes the content and function of protective order and the related motions/tools often seen in the discovery of patent litigation, such as subpoena, motion to seal, patent prosecution bar and source code inspection. Apart from the Federal Court system, the 337 investigation of US International Trade Commission has then been noted, along with the protective order used in USITC Patent litigation. The empirical study focus on the orders relating to protective order and issued by US Federal Courts in 2011 and analyzes them with basic quantitative and qualitative methods. Taking one step ahead, it choose seven cases out of the orders gained and do a more thorough study, so as to investigate the logic of the court in dealing with the motions. Last but not least, given the similarity and differences of the systems, the article briefly introduces the “Secrecy Retaining Order” used in Intellectual Property Litigations in Taiwan and compares with protective order of the United States. The article concludes by providing some insights and suggestions to the Taiwanese corporations when facing the US Patent litigations.