Kējì Fǎxué Pínglùn (Dec 2014)
專利間接侵權之制度規範：我國判決實證研究與法制建議 Legal Regimes on Indirect Patent Infringement: Empirical Studies of Taiwanese Judicial Decisions and
Abstract
專利間接侵權，係以誘引或輔助他人侵害專利之方式，損害專利權之行為。為確保專利保護之實效性，美、日與英、德等歐洲國家專利法均設有間接侵權規定，將侵害專利風險較高之特定間接行為，於直接侵權之外另設獨立規範課以侵權責任。我國迄今尚未將間接侵權納入專利法規範，本文分析美國、歐洲兩大陣營間接侵權制度之構成要件設計，作為本土研究之參照基礎，並且據以分析智慧局曾經提出之間接侵權草案條文。在現行法下，國內學說實務均肯認專利間接侵害得以民法第185 條之造意或幫助等共同侵權行為予以課責。為究明我國目前實際規範狀態，本文針對10 年來專利共同侵權之法院判決進行實證研究。調查結果顯示，我國司法實務上主張間接侵權與認定成立之案件數量均甚為稀少。法院對於間接侵權責任採取從屬於直接侵權之立場；然而，對於間接侵權是否以故意為必要，以及所涵蓋的幫助行為範圍，各法院立場分歧，其見解亦不無有待斟酌之處。為彌補司法實務因直接侵權人無過失，從屬免除間接侵權人之侵權責任，導致間接侵權人即使蓄意引發專利侵權，仍無須為之負責的專利保護真空狀態，我國專利法應明文設置間接侵權之規範條文，並且參照國外法制經驗，妥善設計其涵蓋範圍與 構成要件，避免間接侵權責任過於廣泛，以導引本制度之良善發展。 The indirect infringement of patents denotes that the actor contributes to or actively induces patent infringements finished up by others, so that contravening indirectly the exclusive rights of patentees. For the purpose of assuring effective patent protection, countries such as the United States, Japan, United Kingdom and Germany all have instituted legal regimes addressing this type of patent infringement. Taiwan has not yet established such a scheme in its patent law. The pertinent regulations in the United States and European countries are hence carefully analyzed in this article, serving as a point of reference for reviewing and reflecting Taiwanese draft provisions on indirect infringement, which once emerged in the process of patent law revision concluded in 2012. In the meantime, Article 185 of the Civil Code is another possible basis for patent indirect infringement, which imposes le-gal liability on joint tortfeasors. The authors survey judicial decisions of the past 10 years that referred this article in patent cases, investigating the real contour of indirect infringement in the courtroom. The finding shows that such cases are rarely alleged and decided in the court proceedings. In the few judgments that the courts ruled indeed on that issue, indirect infringement was held predicated upon direct infringement. That position results in no one being liable for the patent infringement if the direct infringer commits no negligence, no matter whether she is manipulated by indirect infringers behind the scene. The courts also diverged on mens rea and covered contributory acts of the indirect infringers. In light of those survey results, it would be advisable that the patent law institutes express provisions regulating indirect infringement, so as to prevent infringers from manipulating innocent others and circumventing due liabilities.
Keywords
