專利訴訟之定暫時狀態處分救濟

Abstract

由於專利訴訟相關產品生命週期短暫且市場競爭激烈，本案訴訟的判決往往無法兼顧時效性。因此，具有迅速性的中間救濟程序，尤其是定暫時狀態處分，由於法院不進行實體審查，台灣專利權人往往能供擔保取得定暫時狀態處分的裁定。弔詭的是，實務上被控侵權人往往也可以反供擔保後得撤銷定暫時狀態處分；如此不僅浪費司法資源，實質上也對於本案訴訟沒有幫助，僅淪為擔保金的競賽。本研究主要從公司的專利訴訟策略，以及台灣法院對於定暫時狀態處分裁定的實務分析出發，比較美國法院對於臨時禁制令的裁定標準，並輔以法律經濟分析的方法來研究適合台灣的定暫時狀態處分實施方式。

基於上述的分析，本論文提出下列建議以為日後定暫時狀態處分施行參考：（1）定暫時狀態處分之審查順序，首先應審查是否保全的必要性，也就是有無「防止發生重大之損害或避免急迫之危險」，其次才審查「勝訴可能性」。（2）進行實體審查，如此才能真正落實衡平原則的概念。而且從法律經濟分析的角度來看，如此能使得雙方當事人更瞭解法院的看法，進而判斷專利訴訟是否應該繼續進行。另外在導入實審後，配合日後智慧財產法院組織法及智慧財產案件審理法施行後，建議以承認爭點效等配套措施，以有效利用司法資源。（3）中間救濟承審法官與本案訴訟承審法官為同一位法官，不僅能促使專利權人在提起中間救濟時更為注意，還能進一步推動實審。（4）提高反供擔保以撤銷定暫時狀態處分裁定的門檻，因為對於法院進行初步實審後所做出的定暫時狀態處分裁定，應對被控侵權人的撤銷主張要求更高的舉證責任，以免造成法秩序的不穩定。（5）在裁定文中開示心證，尤其建議法院在勝訴可能性的部分，明確說明其心證形成之原因。（6）加重防止發生重大損害之釋明責任，甚至建議在某些情形下推定專利權人不會遭受無可彌補之損害，而由專利權人舉證證明。（7）反向假處分的併案處理，以避免正向假處分與反向假處分裁定衝突的情形發生。

Since the life cycle of the products claimed in the patent lawsuit is short and the competition is very intensive in the related market, the time needed for the final decision of the case is always too long as compared to the lifetime of the products. Therefore, the patentee in Taiwan frequently applies the injunctive relief rendered quickly, and gets the positive judgment with high possibility since judges in Taiwan will not practice substantive examination during the trial procedure of the injunctive relief. Contradictory, the accused infringer may move the court for revocation of the ruling for injunctive relief by providing the court-assessed countersecurity. Such kind of security race not only makes judicial resources wasted but also being helpless for the decision of the final trial. In this study, the suitable implementation method of injunctive relief for Taiwan situation is discussed by studying the company’s strategy of patent lawsuit, analyzing the ruling of the injunctive relief made by courts in Taiwan, comparing the standards used by U.S. courts for the ruling of injunctive relief, and using the economic analysis method.

On the basis of the above mentioned analysis, the following suggestions are listed for reference: (1) In the examination of injunctive relief, the necessity of preservation, i.e. necessity for purposes of preventing material harm or imminent danger or other similar circumstances, should be examined first and then the likelihood of success could be examined. (2) Practicing the substantive examination to implement the doctrine of equity. From the economic point of view, substantive examination could make both patentee and accused infringer understand more deeply the opinion of the court, which determine if the lawsuit being continued or not. Besides, with the practice of code of IP court organization and code of IP cases procedure, the issue preclusion could be practiced after the substantive examination is practiced to make use of judicial resource. (3) The judge assigned for the trial of injunctive relief and original trial should be the same, since it can make the patentee being more careful for moving for the injunctive relief and make the substantive examination being more practicable. (4) The burden of proof for moving for the the court for revocation of the ruling for injunctive relief by providing the court-assessed countersecurity should be raised more heavily after the practice of substantive examination. (5) Disclose clearly the reason how judgment is made, especially about the part of likelihood of success. (6) Put heavier burden of proof on patentee for explaining the necessity for purposes of preventing material harm when moving for the injunctive relief. In some cases, e.g. patentee has not used the patent to manufacture products, it is suggested to presume that patentee would not suffer irreparable harm. (7) If the patentee move a motion for injunctive relief for claiming accused infringer not doing something related to the patent, and the accused infringer move a motion for claiming patentee agreeing the accused infringer to do something, these two motions should be consolidated.