專利侵害損害賠償之研究：從美國案例檢討我國專利損賠制度之設計與實施

Abstract

任何人未經專利權人同意而實施專利權利範圍所構成之標的，是侵害其專利權。專利權人除能請求排除侵害，並得請求損害賠償。損害賠償之功能在「彌補」與「填平」受害人之損害，不能對受害人造成不足的賠償或者過度賠償，使其權利不能得到充分保護或是使其獲得不當之利益。因此，賠償受害人「所受損害」及「所失利益」為損害賠償的基本法則；受害人並需證明其請求之損害賠償僅與侵權有關。 我國專利法第八十九條第一項列有三款損害賠償之計算方式。專利權人若無法證明其所受損害或所失利益，仍可「依侵害人因侵害行為所得之利益」或「以銷售該項物品全部收入為所得利益」計算其損害。依照此規定，專利權人有可能因侵權損害賠償獲得更多之利益。此種損賠計算方法之設計，有違我國法制對損害賠償係採填補被侵權人所受之損害及所失利益的基本精神。我國專利法關於損害賠償制度設計之爭議，相關聯之議題尚有(1)專利權人哪些損害可被納入損害賠償範圍，(2)專利權人對專利號碼標示義務，(3)損害賠償請求權時效認定與民法其他利益返還救濟所能請求之範圍，及(4)懲罰性賠償之判斷標準。 本文從民法損害賠償本質，探討我國專利損害賠償之判決，並瞭解美國專利實務在損害賠償規範上之最新動態，從理論與實務方面比較美國與我國在專利損害賠償之相關規定與見解之差異，進而說明我國現行專利法在損害賠償相關規定上之問題與爭議。透過學理探討與實務判決分析，本文認為：(1)專利法第八十九條第一項第一款但書忽略造成專利權人損害之其他因素，違反損害賠償基本原理；第二款以侵權人所得利益或銷售侵權物品之收入為損賠計算方法，亦違反損賠原理，因此建議刪除我國專利法第八十九條第一項第一款但書與第二款。(2)專利權人應證明其所失利益之額度；未能證明其損害額，應以專利技術實施費代替損害賠償。本文建議專利法第八十九條第一項應增訂「依實施專利權通常所應支付對價」一款，以取代現行同項第二款。(3)由於專利專責機關現行實務運作上，是不接受法院囑託估計損害額，因此專利法第八十九條第一項第三款應修正為「法院囑託專家代為估計之數額」。(4)請求非專利產品所失利益賠償，應同時考量專利權人利益維護與產業發展促進之間的平衡。(5)專利號碼標示應以標示於專利產品為原則，並應以「實質一致且連續」方式為之。本文認為現行專利法相關規定無法實現專利號碼標示之精神與目的，應予以修訂。(6)以民法不當得利為請求權基礎，所需返還之利益為相當於使用該專利應支付的對價；以準無因管理為請求權基礎，所償還之利益僅限於明知侵權所獲得之利益。(7)懲罰性賠償之「故意」認定，須審酌一切情狀。

A patent is infringed when anyone makes, uses, or sells any patented invention within the country that granted the patent, or imports the invention into that country during the term of the patent, provided that these actions are not authorized by the patent holder. Besides prohibiting others from exploiting the patented invention, the patentee can also request damages in the case of infringements. The function of compensatory damages is to compensate for injuries or lost profits suffered by the obligee (patentee). Such compensatory damages should not be either too little or too much, otherwise they would either provide insufficient protection for the infringed obligee or else give them unjustified profits. Thus, the basic principle of compensatory damages law is to compensate the obligee’s injuries and lost profits, not to request the return of profits enjoyed by the infringer. In addition, the obligee should show the requested damages are related to the infringements only. Paragraph 1 of Article 89 of Taiwan’s Patent Law outlines three items for calculating compensatory damages. If the patentee cannot prove the injuries or lost profits, he can claim the net profit earned by the infringer through his infringements or the entire income derived from the sale of the infringing articles as the amount of damages. This regulation may allow the infringed patentee to obtain excessive profits from patent infringement litigation, which violates the basic principle of Taiwan’s legal system regarding compensatory damages. Additionally, the relevant areas of the regulations on compensatory damages for patent infringements are: (1) the extent of the patentee’s injuries that can be included in calculating the damages, (2) the patentee’s obligation to mark patent numbers, (3) the determination of the prescription for claiming compensatory damages, (4) the extent of the return of profits requested by the patentee under Taiwan’s Civil law, and (5) the criteria of determining whether infringements are intentional or not. This study analyzes decisions in patent infringement cases in Taiwan based on the nature of Taiwan’s Civil Law and Patent Law. The latest trends in the case laws on compensatory damages in the United States are discussed. The differences in the regulatory framework and courts’ opinions in similar decisions between the United States and Taiwan are then compared to illustrate issues relating to compensatory damages as set out in Taiwanese Patent Law. Based on the analysis and discussion, it is concluded that (1) the proviso of Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 89 of Taiwan’s Patent Law ignores some causes of patentee injuries and thus violates the basic principle of Taiwanese compensatory damages law. Meanwhile, Item 2 of Paragraph 1 uses the net profit earned by the infringers through their infringements or the entire income derived from the sale of infringing articles to calculate the amount of damages, and thus also violates the basic principle of compensatory damages. Therefore, this study suggests that the proviso of Item 1 and Item 2 should be deleted. (2) The patentee should bear the burden of proving lost profits when claiming compensatory damages, and reasonable royalty damages should be considered if such proof cannot be established. This study suggests that another item should be added to Paragraph 1 of Article 89, stating that claims can be made “based on the royalties that should be paid for exploiting the patent”, and that this addition should replace the present Item 2. (3) Because the Intellectual Property Office often rejects requests to assess patent infringement damages in practice, Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 89 may be revised to read “The amount of damages assessed by professionals entrusted by courts”. (4) When claiming for lost profits caused by the sale of unpatented products, the promotion of industrial development should be balanced against protecting the interests of the patentee. (5) The patent number should be marked substantially consistent and continuous on the patented articles in principle. Existing regulations fail to realize the spirit and purpose of patent number marking, and thus should be revised. (6) If the patentee requests the return of profits enjoyed by the infringer based on unjust enrichment as prescribed in Civil Law, the calculation of profits should be limited to the appropriate payment for exploiting the patented invention (namely a reasonable royalty). On the other hand, the recovery of profits is limited to those obtained by infringing with direct intention if requested on the basis of negotiorum gestio as prescribed in Civil Law. (7) The determination of infringement with intent should consider the totality of circumstances.