論專利權間接侵害責任—以複數行為人分擔實施專利之情形為中心

陳皓芸

中文摘要

所謂專利間接侵害,係相對於直接侵害而言,對於並未實施專利權所有構成要件,但與直接侵害的發生具有高度關連之部分預備或幫助行為。我國專利法並未 就間接侵害予以明文規定,則教唆或幫助他人侵害專利權的行為,由於不符合全要件原則而不構成專利直接侵害,於現行法下僅能適用民法第185條共同侵權行為 之規定,惟實務運用上仍多困難。本文假想數種涉及複數行為人分擔實施專利權的情境,以各實施行為均發生在我國境內為前提,檢討我國民法第185條共同侵權 行為之要件,並透過三則具代表性的案例,檢視我國目前在專利侵害事件中民法共同侵權行為規定之適用情形,嘗試釐清法律適用上可能面臨的問題。另一方面,有 鑑於教唆、幫助行為與專利侵害的高度關連,為確保專利權保護之實效性,美、日等國於其專利法中均設有間接侵害之相關規定。惟因我國實務上涉及專利間接侵害 之案件數仍屬有限,本文進一步檢討美國與日本專利法關於間接侵害之規範現況,期能為我國專利間接侵害責任問題的研究提供不同的比較法觀點與省思。

 

Indirect Patent Infringement Liability-Focusing on Divided Infringement

Hao-Yun Chen

abstract

Direct patent infringement refers primarily to unauthorized making, selling, offering to sell, using or importing a patented invention, whereas indirect patent infringement encompasses conduct inducing or contributing to direct infringement, which however does not constitute exploitation of the patented invention. In Taiwan, currently there exist no provisions governing indirect infringement pursuant to the Patent Act. That is to say, an Individual’s act, which induces or contributes to direct infringement conducted by others, does not constitute patent infringement under the Patent Act. Instead, such act may be held liable for joint tortfeasor liability in accordance with Article 185 (2) of the Taiwan Civil Code. Nevertheless, some difficulties arise when joint tortfeasor liability is being applied. This article thus assumes, on the premise that all conduct occurs in Taiwan, three types of patent infringement involving multiple parties, and discusses the issues relating to joint tortfeasor liability through reviewing three important court decisions.

         Additionally, given that some inducing or contributing acts are closely connected with direct infringement, both the patent laws of the United States and Japan contain provisions related to indirect infringement in order to ensure the effectiveness of patent protection. Owing to the fact that there are only a handful of cases in Taiwan addressing the issues of patent indirect infringement, this article also examines the current regulatory status of indirect infringement liability in the United States and Japan, aiming to present diverse viewpoints on patent indirect infringement through a comparative study.