| 關 鍵 詞： |
Noerr-Pennington 豁免；虛假訴訟例外；客觀上欠缺基礎；正當權利行使；不當行使智慧財產權；警告信函 |
| 中文摘要： |
美國反托拉斯法領域中，有所謂的 Noerr-Pennington 豁免，亦即若是人民正當行使請願權（涵蓋立法、行政、司法等活動），包括提起智慧財產權訴訟，可豁免於反托拉斯法之制裁。但是有幾種例外，其中有所謂的虛假例外（sham exception），或稱為虛假訴訟（sham litigation）。要構成此一虛假例外，根據美國聯邦最高法院 1993 年之 Professional Real Estate 案，必須符合雙重條件：1.客觀上該訴訟欠缺基礎；2.主觀上該人為惡意。此一標準頗為嚴格，但也並非沒有案例符合此要件。
相對於美國，臺灣公平法第 45 條之「依照著作權法、商標法、專利法或其他智慧財產權法規行使權利之正當行為，不適用本法之規定。」某程度也是一種豁免規定。但一方面，對於何謂「權利行使」，或有不同看法；更重要的是，何謂「正當權利行使」？目前公平會之見解大致為，若是「為侵害之通知並請求排除（通知競爭對手、提起訴訟）」，均為權利正當行使，甚至「無論其內容真偽虛實」，也屬正當行為。
本文欲深入研究美國虛假訴訟例外、其適用要件、適用範圍，透過代表性案例之研究，掌握其真正的內涵。另外，本研究將以智慧財產法院判決為中心，整理我國目前智慧財產法院對不當行使智慧財產權的各種類型所採行之見解。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Noerr-Pennington Doctrine；Sham Litigation Exception；Objectively Baseless；Exercise of Rights Properly；Improper Conduct；Warning Letters |
| 英文摘要： |
In antitrust laws in the U.S., there is the so-called Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which means that if an intellectual property suit is brought properly, such action will be immune from antitrust sanctions. Nevertheless, there are some exceptions to this doctrine, one of them being sham exception or sham litigation. According to the U.S. Supreme Court case Professional Real Estate（1993）, sham litigation is litigation that fulfills two criteria:（1）it is objectively baseless, and（2）it is subjectively brought in bad faith. The standard is strict, but there are still some cases that meet these criteria.
In comparison, Article 45 of the Fair Trade Act in Taiwan stipulates: “No provision of this Act shall apply to any proper conduct in connection with the exercise of rights pursuant to the provisions of the Copyright Act, Trademark Act, Patent Act or other intellectual property laws.” This indicates that there is some kind of immunity. However, there are some problems and misunderstandings regarding this section. There are different views regarding the meaning of the “exercise of rights,” as well as the meaning of “exercise of rights properly.” According to the Fair Trade Commission（Taiwan）, if the “rights holder sends notice, claims the removal of the infringement and brings litigation to competitors,” these activities belong to “exercise of rights properly.” The FTC has also even said: “whether a cause of a litigation is truth or not doesn’t matter.” It would thus seem that all litigation fits the “exercise of rights properly” description.
We will study representative sham litigation cases in the U.S., to understand its elements, applicable scope, and categories. In addition, we will study the case decisions of the Intellectual Property Court in Taiwan, attempt to classify different types of improper conduct and analyze the court’s decisions and opinions.
|
| 目 次： |
一、前言
二、反托拉斯法之 Noerr 豁免與例外
三、虛假智慧財產訴訟
四、Noerr 豁免與虛假例外是否適用於其他訴訟前行為與其他法律
五、臺灣智慧財產權之不當行使
六、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|