Kējì Fǎxué Pínglùn (Jun 2009)
美國、台灣與中國大陸之專利侵權民事損害賠償實證研究 An Empirical Study on the Damage Award of Patent Infringement in the U.S., Taiwan and China
Abstract
本文針對專利侵權損害賠償制度之設計及實務上所採行的計算，進行實證研究，用以檢視制度之實施，並對相關現象提供解釋。 美國、台灣與中國大陸的法律與法院，在損害賠償計算的原理上相近，但在實務運作上有相當大之落差，其關鍵在於訴訟當事人對損害舉證的要求與法院採信的程度而定。美國專利訴訟判決自1980 年至2000 年之間，以所失利益（lost profit）為主要的計算方式（83%）。然而，自2000 年以降，採用合理權利金（reasonable royalty）之案件反而成為主流（65%）。台灣現行所採的「差額說」與「利益說」，因為舉證不易，司法實務上過份倚重證據來源與客觀性，賠償數額也有偏低的情形。中國大陸的判決則幾乎都是由法官依據法定範圍酌定其賠償額度。 本文之結論為：1.專利糾紛的損害賠償，在不同管轄範圍內，由於法院的經驗、專利權利範圍與市場影響的不確定，以及產業經濟與企業財務的基礎環境差異，而有不同的判決。美國法院的經驗與財經基礎環境都較為成熟，判決較具說服力；台灣與中國大陸的法院對於當事人之舉證，通常認為未能達到足以確信的程度；2.負舉證責任的一方，對於證據被法院採信的機率難以確定，以及財務與經營資料作為證據之提出，有洩漏營業秘密之顧慮，因此縱然所失利益之計算可以期待較高之賠償金額，因而實務上傾向以市場中通常之交易情形，例如美國的合理權利金，或兩岸由法院酌定之賠償額；3.台灣與大陸以小額損害賠償為絕大多數，高額損害賠償非常少見，裁定的金額有偏低的現象；4.大陸對於發明專利損害賠償之判決數量極其有限，以國內廠商間之實用新型及設計專利侵害之案件為絕大多數。外國廠商的專利訴訟則以市場的佔有為主要考量，包括以行政查處及邊境保護防制侵權產品的內國與國際銷售，並非以取得法院酌定之賠償為其訴訟之目的。 This paper performs an empirical study on the regulatory frameworks and practical measures of the court decisions of patent damages among US, Taiwan and China. The basic principles employed in assessing patent damages seem similar among the above jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the outcomes of court decisions vary significantly due to the burden and standard of proofs of losses suffered by the patentees. Since 2000, the approach of reasonable royalty has overtaken the lost profit as the dominant measure of damage awards in the U.S. 65% of awarded damages were based on the measure of reasonable royalty, as contrast to 83% of lost profits during 1980 to 2000. It is also found that the difficulties of proving the amount of actual loss of patentees, as well as the cause-effect relationship directly caused by the infringing conducts, the damages decided by the courts of Taiwan and China are in general much lower than expected. In China, most of the compensations are determined with the statutory damages ranged from RMB 5,000 to 500,000, and more than 98% are lower than RMB 300,000. It is concluded that: (1) Court decisions indicate the differences of the legal infrastructures, the experience of judges, the enforceability of patent types and market structures among different jurisdictions. The U.S. courts are more inclined to recognize the evidences on a relatively broad and reasonable basis, nevertheless, the courts of Taiwan and China are considered less experienced in such decisions. (2) The party bearing the burden of proof finds the uncertainty of convincing evidence and also the risk of disclosing proprietary information, thus it results that the damages are primarily statutory provisions in China. Furthermore, Taiwan’s courts tend to utilize objective, though may not be proper, financial data as the base for damage measures. (3) Small damages are commonly granted in the courts of Taiwan and China. (4) In China, most of the patent lawsuits occurred among domestic companies with the new model and design patents, only very limited cases are associated with invention patents. So far as most international firms are concerned, instead of seeking monetary compensations, their litigations are mainly focused on acquiring the market shares by preventing the distribution of infringing products in China, and in the meantime, reducing the exportation of infringing products from China. It therefore leads to the frequent use of administrative enforcement, injunctions and boarder measures, in lieu of the damage claims in the judicial courts.
