| 關 鍵 詞： |
專利侵權；不正行為；行使詐欺取得專利；Walker Process 式詐欺；反托拉斯法；公平交易法 |
| 中文摘要： |
本文介紹美國專利侵權之「不正行為」抗辯，專利侵權被告在專利侵權訴訟中提出此抗辯，可以主張專利無法實施。另外，本文也介紹反托拉斯法訴訟中「行使詐欺取得專利」此一問題，亦即專利侵權被告除了不正行為抗辯外，另外可提出反托拉斯法之反訴，請求三倍損害賠償。透過重大案例之介紹，本文介紹並釐清不正行為與行使詐欺取得專利之要件之不同。
對照我國，本文挑選 O2 公司隱匿美國專利申請駁回資訊案，並對臺灣高等法院民事判決 94 年度智上字第 20 號及 46 號判決進行分析檢討。比較發現，該案中 O2 公司隱匿美國專利申請案被駁回而要求減縮申請專利範圍之重大資訊。本文將以該案分析是否適用詐欺取得專利之問題，並說明在我國公平交易法中，如何引進美國此一概念。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Patent Infringement；Inequitable Conduct；Fraudulently-procured Patent；Walker Process Fraud；Antitrust Laws；Fair Trade Act |
| 英文摘要： |
This article addresses the defense of “inequitable conduct” under U.S. Patent Law .A finding of inequitable conduct in relation to a patent may support a judgment that the patent-in-suit is unenforceable. We also discuss the counter-claim of triple damages under antitrust laws in the enforcement of a fraudulently-procured patent. Several leading cases are discussed to show the different elements that must be fulfilled to support a claim of inequitable conduct and a claim for the enforcement of a fraudulently-procured patent.
To provide a basis for discussing the adoption of “patent fraud claims” in the Fair Trade Act, we study two Taiwanese civil cases. These two cases reveal that the patent holder, O2 Micro International Limited, upon applying for the Taiwanese patent failed to disclose material information on the denial of its patent application in other countries, and thereby obtained a larger patent scope than it should have procured. Because there is no “patent unenforceable” defense in Taiwan’s Patent Law, we suggest that the Walker Process fraud as a patent procedural abuse approach should be adopted in Taiwan’s Fair Trade Act.
|
| 目 次： |
一、前言
二、專利侵權之不正行為抗辯
（一）專利無法實施
（二）不正行為抗辯
（三）不正行為抗辯之要件
（四）影響批評與改變
（五）Therasense 案後影響
三、詐欺取得專利之反托拉斯法反訴
（一）Noerr 豁免法理
（二）最高法院 Walker Process 案
（三）聯邦巡迴法院 1998 年 Nobelpharma 案
（四）小結
四、比較臺灣實務與建議
（一）O2 公司隱匿美國專利申請駁回資訊案
（二）我國專利申請實務之問題
（三）比較與建議
五、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|