專利間接侵權之法律分析與實證研究

Abstract

專利權須有效地受到保護，方能達到專利法鼓勵發明創新與技術公開之立法目的。因此，專利權人對於侵害專利之行為，能否有效地進行救濟為專利法立法之重要考量。專利間接侵權，係以間接方式侵害專利權之行為，雖非侵害專利權本身，然具有鼓舞他人侵害專利權之作用，亦是幫助他人侵害之行為。為確保專利權之實效性，美、日、德等國之專利法均有專利間接侵權規定，將與侵害結合蓋然性較高之特定行為，於直接侵權之外另設獨立規範。 本文對於美國、德國、英國、日本之專利間接侵權規定進行分析，各國規定並未採取一致的判斷標準，突顯了專利制度之選擇，反映了各國不同的產業經濟環境與社會需求。本文比較各國法制之構成要件差異，盼能找出值得我國修法時注意考慮、仔細選擇的重點。為了解目前實務現況，本文針對我國法院判決進行實證研究，以構成要件作為分析標準，探討法院之認定情形。觀察結果顯示，判決多採取間接侵權從屬於直接侵權之立場，認為專利間接侵權之成立，須以直接侵權行為成立為前提。對於造意及幫助侵權人的主觀要件，實務上有不同之見解，有認為必須以行為人具有故意為必要，也有判決認為過失即可成立。本文亦發現行為人主觀要件會和間接侵權與直接侵權之關係採取獨立說或從屬說有關之有趣現象。目前我國法院判決主要爭點著重在間接侵權與直接侵關係和行為人主觀要件的部分，行為客體、行為態樣、排除對象則尚未有判決提出討論。 本文認為我國目前實務案件量少，就專利間接侵權之爭議，尚處於發展狀態，離穩定見解出現還有一段距離。間接侵權規定未予以明文，似乎導致專利權人少有主張；將間接侵權規定明文化，方能促進實務案例累積。參考外國法制經驗及觀察我國現行法制狀況後，修正草案之立法方向並無太大問題，期盼日後能重啟對間接侵權修法之討論，在兼顧專利權人利益和公眾利益之情況下，建立適合我國之專利間接侵權制度。

The effective protection of the patent is necessary for achieving the patent law’s goal of encouraging innovation and the disclosure of patented technology. Therefore, the ability for patentee to effectively carry out the relief is an important consideration in patent law. Indirect patent infringement though not infringe patent itself, but have the effect of encouraging or helping others to infringe the patent. To ensure the effectiveness of patent rights, many countries have codified indirect infringement in statutory form. Analysis of the legislation of the U.S., Germany, Britain and Japan, the study found that based on different economic environment and social needs, these countries did not adopt identical criterion. The article compares the differences between the elements of foreign legislation, expect to find out points that worth our consideration when amending the law. In order to understand the current status of practice, I do empirical research on the R.O.C. court judgment. Focusing on the constitutive elements, try to found the opinion of the court. The result of the research suggests that majority of judgment held indirect patent infringement should subordinate to direct infringement. On subjective element, there are different opinions, some opinions held that prove the intent is necessary, but some held that negligence can be established. It is interesting to find that defendant’s subjective is associated with the relationship between direct infringement and indirect infringement in judgment. Reference to foreign legislation and observation of current law, the draft of amendment on indirect patent infringement had a right direction. The study look forward to resume legislative discussion. Taking into account the interests of patentee and the public interest, and establish a regulation comply with practical need and the domestic expectation.