| 關 鍵 詞： |
專利；專利權侵害；專利無效；更正；智慧財產法院；專利訴訟 |
| 中文摘要： |
與其他提升科學技術水準與促進產業發展之政策工具相較，專利權在提供研發誘因上扮演重要角色。我國專利制度受到德國立法例之公法及私法雙軌制影響，有效性爭議屬於行政事件，侵權議題則適用民事爭訟程序。相異於兩造當事人對立之無效訴訟，於我國質疑專利有效性之舉發撤銷屬於公法事件，因此，智慧局必為一造當事人，對於有效性具利害關係之專利權人及舉發人，無法就其事實於程序中直接爭執。為解決舉發撤銷程序之冗長，我國於 2008 年成立智慧財產法院及施行智慧財產案件審理法，期能整合行政與民事之訴訟程序，儘速釐清專利行政與民事爭議。惟制度運作迄今衍生出諸多問題，究其原因，實因我國就專利有效性問題未擺脫行政事件之枷鎖，亦未採行兩造當事人對立之訴訟程序。相較於此，美國於 2011 年施行 AIA 法及建立 PTAB，賦予 USPTO 全新角色，亦使當事人能透過類似司法制度之兩造當事人對立程序，解決專利有效性及其衍生之更正議題，進而有助於侵權訴訟之進行。本文檢視美國 PTAB 程序及比較我國智慧財產法院運作，並以專利權侵害、有效性與更正程序之交錯為討論核心。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
patent；patent infringement；invalidation of patent；amendment of patent right；intellectual property court；patent litigation |
| 英文摘要： |
Nowadays enormous investments for research and development are necessary to survive in a competitive market. Proper protection for inventions and an enforceable legal mechanism with regard to patent rights thus needs to be considered, since patent law provides the “first-mover advantage” to spur innovation in every technological field. Taiwan’s patent legal framework was modeled after German law, in particular the bifurcation (or double-track, “Trennungsprinzip”) system of administrative (validity) and civil (infringement) proceedings. Accordingly, disputes over validity are administrative matters governed by administrative proceedings, and issues of patent infringement have to be determined in the civil action. Unlike the inter partes invalidation procedure, for those who wish to invalidate a patent granted by Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO), only the ex parte revocation procedure is available and the TIPO is always the accused party to the proceedings. Since strong need was felt to establish effective adjudication proceedings in IP fields, in 2008 the IP Court was established and the IP Adjudication Act was passed in Taiwan. However, it seems that the goal of establishing an effective and efficient judicial proceeding has not been fully achieved. By comparison, the US Congress passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011 which laid the foundation for a new adjudicatory body at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The AIA established the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) which provides a judicial and inter partes proceeding. Since the issues over validation and reissue of patents can be resolved in an efficient way provided by the PTAB, the patent rights can be effectively enforced in the civil action. The purpose of this article is to analyze the operation of the PTAB in the USA and the IP Court in Taiwan, particularly focusing on the interaction among the proceedings of invalidation and amendment of patent right and infringement lawsuits.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、專利權侵害、有效性與更正程序之互動
一、專利制度兼具公共利益與財產權利益之本旨
二、專利侵權訴訟伴隨而生之有效性爭議
三、專利侵權、有效性爭議伴隨而生之更正程序
參、美國專利爭訟制度及不同程序之互動
一、概述
二、專利侵權訴訟可一併釐清有效性爭議
三、單方再審查與再領證程序
四、PTAB 兩造當事人準訴訟程序：有效性與更正爭議
五、PTAB 與其他程序之互動：有效性、更正與侵權爭議
六、小結：AIA 法將專利有效性爭議由民事法院引導至 PTAB
肆、我國專利爭訟程序之現況與問題
一、2008 年變革目標：審判專業化及迅速解決紛爭
二、設立智慧財產案件之專責法院
三、以審理法第 33 條迅速解決行政爭訟：有效性與更正爭議
四、以審理法第 16 條迅速解決民事爭訟：有效性、更正與侵權爭議
五、小結
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|