Kējì Fǎxué Pínglùn (Dec 2006)
美國專利產品的修理與再製之區分與案例類型 Distinction between Repair and Reconstruction of a Patented Product and Category of Cases in United States
Abstract
專利權人或其被授權人所銷售之專利產品，如於銷售時未附加有效限制，購買者可以任意使用、拋棄或再銷售該專利產品，其中使用之權利包含修理或改裝，但不包含再製（或稱：再造）一新的專利產品，此即所謂的可允許修理理論（doctrine of permissible repair）。可允許修理理論源自於專利權耗盡理論和默示授權理論。可允許修理或改裝專利產品，包含拆解和清洗專利產品，並更換其中未受個別專利保護之零組件，不論該零組件是否已耗損或使用過；不可允許再製專利產品係指，當專利產品整體已經耗損後，對其重新製造以致於實質上製造一個新産品。美國最高法院於1850 年第一次處理修理和再製區分案例至今已逾150 年，各級法院已累積了相當多的判決。本文整理與分析美國近年來有關於區分專利產品修理與再製之糾紛案例，藉以歸納出美國最高法院與美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院所發展之判斷準則及應注意事項。 The purchaser of a patented product sold by the patentee or its licensees without effective restriction thereon has the rights to use it, discard it, or resell it. The right to use the patented product includes replacement or modification, but does not include the right to construct an essentially new article on the template of the original one. This is so-called the doctrine of permissible repair, which originates from the patent exhaustion doctrine and implied license. Permissible repair of a patented product includes disassembly and clean of the product as well as replacement of unpatented components, regardless of whether the replaced components are spent or not. Reconstruction of a patented product is basically to make a new article, after the entity, viewed as a whole, has become spent. The Supreme Court of United States first addressed the issue about distinction between repair and reconstruction in 1850, and numerous cases have been decided in different levels of courts. This paper analyzes the recent patent infringement cases in United States regarding distinction between repair and reconstruction of patent products to obtain the guideline.
