標題: 專利排他權之研究-以美國專利案件永久禁制令之核發為中心
Permanent Injunction as a Right to Exclude in U.S. Patent Law
作者: 盧佳德
Chia-Te Lu
劉尚志
王敏銓
Shang-Jyh Liu
Min-Chiuan Wang
科技法律研究所
關鍵字: 專利訴訟;專利侵害之救濟;禁制令;永久禁制令;專利流氓;專利怪客;排他權;財產法則;補償法則;patent litigation;remedies of patent infringement;injunction;permanent injunction;patent troll;right to exclude;property rule;liability rule
公開日期: 2006
摘要: 智慧財產權扮演著促進知識經濟發展之重要角色,而專利一直是智慧財產權最重要的指標。關於專利制度,TRIPS第28條規定下專利權就是一種排他權(right to exclude)。而具有完善制度並領先各國之美國專利法,亦認為專利權的核心就是在於專利排他權,不僅作為促進科學進步的誘因,更是專利權人用來保護自己的最佳武器。 專利排他權一向被認為是非常強力的救濟方式,然而不乏出現影響當事人及社會甚鉅的例子,引發專利排他權的保護是否有過大或是不公平的爭議。2006年1月23日,製造「黑莓機」系統的Research in Motion(RIM)在聯邦地方法院被告專利侵權敗訴並核發永久禁制令後,其上訴至最高法院的改判請求被拒絕了,維持禁制令的決定。法院核發之永久禁制令,將迫使RIM停止其上億之商業運作,並嚴重影響到廣大的黑莓機使用者(公共利益)。因此被告RIM別無選擇,和原告NTP達成和解,以六億一千二百多萬美金之授權條件結束了這場漫長的專利訴訟。由此可知,永久禁制令是專利權人用來談判獲利的最佳手段,而且效果驚人。這也和近年來,「專利流氓」或「專利怪客」頻頻出現有關。但在2006年5月15日,最高法院在eBay一案拒絕了過去聯邦巡迴上訴法院所建立的「普遍原則」,廢除「專利權人勝訴後法院應自動核發永久禁制令」的原則,衝擊了專利世界原本的生態。在禁制令會造成雙方損益失衡、損害公共利益之情況下,金錢損害賠償成了替代永久禁制令之救濟方式。因此在本篇論文中,將深入探討美國專利制度下,eBay案對專利發展所帶來的影響,及法院在專利排他權的限制上,如何去考量衡平要素,以期作為未來國內專利制度改善之借鏡。
Intellectual property is one of the important roles to knowledge-based economic development. And patent right is the most important indicator of intellectual property. TRIPs Art. 28 says patent right is a patentee’s right to exclude others. Also in U.S. Patent system, one of the best and finest patent systems, uses the term “right to exclude”. This means that the principle value of a patent is its statutory right to exclude. It not only protects the patentee’s right absolutely, but also keeps a strong patent system. On January 23, 2006, Research in Motion (RIM), maker of the BlackerBerry communications device, was denied cert by the Supreme Court in an injunction imposed by the Judge of the Eastern District of Virginia. The injunction not only threatened to halt RIM’s billion dollar business, but also affected the public interest, lots of BlackBerry users. Finally RIM settled with the patent holder, NTP, by paying 612 million dollar for license for the life of the patents. A patentee’s right to exclude others has always been recognized as its most powerful remedy. But some patentees, like “patent troll”, use it as leverage for better license terms. Thus important issue arised to discuss whether a patentee’s right to exclude is too powerful. Yet on May 15, 2006, the Supreme Court’s eBay decision rejected the “general rule” that permanent injunctions should issue to victorious patentee has changed the landscape of patent litigation. Monetary remedies will be adequate for patent infringement when the permanent injunction would severely harm the public and the infringer. Therefore this thesis is going to study the eBay’s influence on U.S. patent system, and the reasonable limitation of a patentee’s right to exclude by considering equitable factors. The equitable discretion over injunctions might be well suited to allow courts to adapt to the rapid technological and legal development in the patent system. And observation of U.S. patent development is helpful to the advance of Taiwan’s patent regime.
URI: http://140.113.39.130/cdrfb3/record/nctu/#GT009338512
http://hdl.handle.net/11536/79699
Appears in Collections:Thesis


Files in This Item:

  1. 851201.pdf
  2. 851202.pdf