The Willful Standard of Punitive Damages of Patent Infringement in Taiwan
|關鍵字:||專利;懲罰性損害賠償;惡意侵權;智慧財產法院;迴歸分析;patent;punitive damages;willful infringement;Intellectual Property Court (IPC);logistic regression|
The “punitive damages” regime, known as treble damages, has long been introduced into R.O.C Patent Law. However, for many years, most discussions about the punitive damages provision are restricted to the theory of its nature and function except for the state of judicial practice. Thus, this thesis aims at analyzing cases of patent infringement, which are selected conditionally from the R.O.C Intellectual Property Court (IPC) since its establishment in 2008, by the methods of “Binary Logistic Regression” and cases studying. Therefore, in an empirical way, we can conclude about what factor plays an important role in proving willful infringement and take an overall review upon the application of punitive damages regulation in judicial practice simultaneously. Moreover, this thesis discovered that if defendant is aware of such patent before patentee’s notice or continues to infringe patent after notice, it is highly likely that the IPC will deem defendant’s act of patent infringement willful. But virtually IPC is still conservative on the recognition of defendant’s “bad faith”. Besides, patentee’s ratio of winning in infringement litigations is relatively low compared to other countries like U.S. Even if defendant’s bad faith is proved, the multiple and amount of enhanced damages on average are comparatively low as well. Furthermore, in light of the features of patent infringement cases and from the viewpoints of comparative law, compensation of damages shall not serve as the only purpose of liability of patent infringement anymore. The function of deterrence and punishment of patent infringement shall be included otherwise. Hence, it is necessarily worthy of a more comprehensive study about whether the punitive damages regime originated from common law system is alien to our traditional statutes centered by the R.O.C Civil Code, and whether it leads to an over-protection for patentee that usually causes unjust enrichment.