中國訴前禁制令制度之研究

Abstract

由於知識產權具有權利客體的無形性和可複製性，將會使得侵權行為所造成的損害變得巨大而快速，為了使權利人的權益能得到有效的保護，在TRIPS協議第50條規定提供專利權人適當的保護措施，包含證據保全、財產保全及行為保全，涵蓋了訴訟中及訴訟前的保全措施，同時也規定到如果法院所核發的禁制令被撤銷或因申請人的任何行為或疏忽而失效，或事後發現根本不存在的對知識產權的侵權或侵權威脅者，亦課予申請人賠償責任，此規定適度的加強了專利權人的保護並且兼顧到被申請人的權益。 中國目前因為加入WTO的緣故，因此必須遵守TRIPS協議第50條的規定，從而在2000年8月25日第2次的專利法修正當中，增加了專利法第61條訴前禁制令之規定，並正式於2001年7月1日正式生效。訴前禁制令是讓權利人在向法院起訴之前，因情形緊迫而依專利法第61條之規定可以請求法院做出要求被控侵權人為或不為特定行為的命令，訴前禁制令的頒佈可將事態或行為維持現狀，限制其進一步發展的措施。亦即提供了專利權人在起訴前的私法救濟機會，以避免專利權人因冗長的專利救濟程序而使損害繼續擴大，終致發生了無法填補的損害。為解決專利法修改所帶來的問題，最高人民法院制定了「關於對訴前停止侵犯專利權行為適用法律問題的若干規定」，以對專利法第61條之規定，提供法院一個在實務操作上可資遵循的依據。但因專利法第61條的規定與最高人民法院制定的「關於對訴前停止侵犯專利權行為適用法律問題的若干規定」以及TRIPS協議第50條的規定在實際司法實務運作上，仍有許多值得探討的地方，從而本文將從美國的禁制令制度和台灣的假扣押、假處分或定暫時狀態處分的制度和中國的訴前禁制令制度加以分析比較研究後，再提出研究發現與心得。

The damage of tort becomes huge and speedy due to the invisibility and reproducibility of the intellectual property rights. In order to protect owner’s right effectively, Article 50 of TRIPS stipulates the proper and effective protection measure for patentee, including evidence maintain、property maintain and behavior maintain before and during the litigation. It also stipulate that if the provisional measure issued by Court becomes invalid or is dismissaled by Court due to the applicant’s conduct or withdraw or there is no infringement of intellectual property rights, the applicant shall indemnify the defendant. This Article 50 of TRIPS can both enhanced the protection of rights of patentee and defendant. The People’s Republic of China shall comply with the TRIPS due to become the member of WTO. Thus The People’s Republic of China added Article 61 regard to provisional measure before litigation in second amendment of Patent Law in August 25, 2000 and became effective in July 1, 2001. The provisional measure offer the right owner a chance to request the Court to order prompt and effective provisional measures to restrict the defendant to do or not to do specific conduct according the Article 61 of Patent Law under critical and emergent situation. The issue of the provisional measure order can maintain the present situation and offer the right owner a chance to avoid expanding the damage for time-consuming litigation procedure. In order to resolve the issue caused by amendment of Patent Law, the Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China made a declaratory rule for the Patent Law Article 61 to make sure the court can properly apply the patent law article 61. Since there are a lot of issues worth further research in Article 61 of Patent Law, TRIPS Article 50 and above declaratory rules in judicial practice. Therefore, this thesis compares the provisional measure system of People’s Republic of China with the same or similar measure in USA and The Republic of China and submitted the research and discovery of provisional measure system.