| 關 鍵 詞： |
市場界定；零組件；拒絕交易；禁反言；權利失效；遲誤抗辯 |
| 中文摘要： |
本文以帝寶公司侵害 Daimler 所有之賓士車燈設計專利為實例，以智慧財產法院本案一審判決為對象，探討售後零組件之相關市場界定、拒絕授權、違反禁反言及權利失效等競爭法與專利法交錯之關鍵爭議問題。本文認為車燈本身應構成獨立之售後相關市場，Daimler 就系爭車燈外形擁有設計專利，在其授權市場上具有獨占地位，卻拒絕授權帝寶公司生產系爭車燈，在市場上排除具有不同特點的該公司產品，有害市場競爭，不無可能構成獨占濫用。惟帝寶公司產品特點是否來自該公司創新研發成果，法院應詳加調查審認，方可確定是否有違競爭法。2002 年 VDA 代表包含 Daimler 在內的德國汽車業對該國政府遞交聲明，表示不會對於副廠零組件製造商行使外觀設計保護。搭載系爭車燈之賓士車款 2009 年全球同步上市銷售，同年 Daimler 在我國取得系爭專利權後歷經 8 年未曾行使，卻突然提起本件侵權訴訟。該公司先前共同承諾加上長期不行使權利之行為，具有誤導效果且引發副廠業者的信賴與投資，違反禁反言與誠實信用原則，構成專利權濫用，應無法行使系爭專利權。此外，該公司長期未在國內行使權利，和上述承諾合併觀察，顯露出不欲行使權利之態度，引發帝寶公司之信任，可能已經符合權利失效理論的三項要素，同樣違反誠信原則。不過上述承諾與 Daimler 2014 年知悉系爭車燈侵權之事實，均發生在德國境內，能否用以認定我國系爭專利構成權利失效，不無疑問。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Relevant Market；Part and Component；Refusal to Deal；Equitable Estoppel Verwirkung；Laches |
| 英文摘要： |
Through an examination of the Intellectual Property Court`s first instance judgment on Daimler v. Depo, a design patent infringement case concerning automobile headlamps, this paper explores key issues at the intersection between competition law and patents, including the market definition for repair parts, the refusal to license, equitable estoppel, Verwirkung, and laches. The author finds that repairing headlamps should constitute a relevant market in its own right, that is, an aftermarket. Daimler possesses a design patent over the exterior design of the headlamp which is at issue in the present case. Hence it enjoys a monopoly in the upstream licensing market of the lamp, yet refuses to license Depo to produce them. In this way, Daimler excludes lamp products possibly with innovative features from the market, injures competition, and therefore its actions might constitute illegal monopolization. The court should investigate relevant facts and consider this possibility carefully in the follow-up proceedings of this litigation. In 2002, VDA delivered a letter to the German federal chancellery on behalf of the German automobile industry, expressing that they would not enforce the legal protection of their exterior design against aftermarket repair parts manufacturers. Daimler has not enforced the patent at issue for almost 8 years since it was granted in Taiwan in 2009. In the aftermath, Daimler suddenly initiated this infringement lawsuit against DEPO. The VDA letter and long-time non-enforcement are misleading, and trigger the trust and investment of repair parts manufacturers. Daimler was in violation of equitable estoppel and the principle of good faith, hence constituting patent misuse. In addition, the fact of the long-time non-enforcement of the patent at issue, combined with the VDA letter, conveys a not-care-for-enforcement attitude on the side of Daimler. That appearance generates the trust and investment at the end of repair parts manufacturers, which in its entirety may also contravene the principle of good faith and lead to Verwirkung, which in turn makes the patent unenforceable. Since a couple of key facts occurred in foreign countries, arguably connecting to local counterparts instead of the patent at issue in Taiwan, the conclusion of the last point is not so certain.
|
| 目 次： |
一、前言
二、案件基本事實、當事人主張與判決結果
三、相關市場界定
（一）判決見解：售後零組件市場並非獨立之本案相關市場
（二）售後零組件倘若成本占比不高，應自行構成本案相關市場
（三）售後零組件獨立成為相關市場的另一主因：資訊成本過高
四、拒絕授權
（一）相關事實與可能適用法條
（二）可參考之違法判斷標準
（三）一審判決見解分析
（四）本案須深入瞭解競爭損害及侵權產品有無創新特性
五、違反禁反言與誠實信用原則
（一）相關事實及與競爭法之關連
（二）一審判決見解分析
（三）違反禁反言原則，構成專利權濫用
六、權利失效與誠實信用原則
（一）權利失效理論與美國法上遲誤（Laches）抗辯
（二）系爭專利是否構成權利失效？
七、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|