Kējì Fǎxué Pínglùn (Dec 2009)
智慧財產案例有效性判斷爭議 ― 以美國法「爭點排除」為主 Disputed Issues in Deciding the Validity of Intellectual Property Right ― A Focus on Issue Preclusion
Abstract
我國智慧財產訴訟新制結合民事、刑事、行政訴訟三種訴訟程序，法院就當事人主張或抗辯智慧財產權有應撤銷、廢止之原因者，對其主張或抗辯有無理由自為判斷之結果，引起民事、刑事、行政訴訟關於智慧財產有效性判斷歧異之問題。 智慧財產權有效性判斷歧異爭議或可藉由擴大爭點效之效力，以避免裁判歧異，美國法爭點排除（issue preclusion）相關理論值得加以參考。依智慧財產案件審理法第33條規定，並未明文限制當事人於前案訴訟程序中，就同一撤銷或廢止理由得提出而未提出智慧財權撤銷、廢止之新證據，不得另案主張。是否能防止反覆爭訟，尚有待觀察。而美國法請求排除（claim preclusion）理論，就不同訴訟事件中判斷歧異與反覆爭訟的發生，可發生一定之防止作用，亦可供借鏡。 本文就智慧財產案件審理之管轄及有效性判斷歧異所生爭議相關問題加以討論並提出初步意見，以作為進一步探討及實務之參考。 The new Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act consists of civil, criminal or administrative actions (three in one). While a party claims or defends that an intellectual property right shall be cancelled or revoked in civil or criminal actions, there are possibilities of contradictions and different litigation may offer solutions to eliminate conflicts on court determinations of validity. Issue preclusion doctrine in case law in America provides relative references to deal conflict of decisions on the validity of intellectual property right. According to the Article 33 of Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act, there are no limitations for a case to introduce the evidences those could be presented in a prior action on the same grounds for the cancellation or revocation of a registered trademark of patent. It takes time to observe whether the goal could be reach to prevent procedural delay by submitting repeatedly cancellation or revocation action with the same evidences. However, claim preclusion doctrine in America also shows some references for dealing that problem. This note tries to provide preliminary suggestions on disputing issue arose on jurisdiction, conflicts of decisions on the validity of intellectual property right and relative disputed issues of civil, criminal or administrative action for further study and reference to IP practitioners.
