1 |
專利聯盟所涉及專利權濫用問題之研究 / The research of patent misuse issues in patent pool licensing何曜任, Ho, Yao Jen Unknown Date (has links)
專利聯盟(patent pools)可以創造龐大的促進競爭效益,但是同時也可能產生妨礙競爭與創新之疑慮,若法律完全不對專利聯盟之運作進行規範,專利權人將得以利用專利聯盟制度作為提昇自己市場獨占力量,抑制市場競爭,甚至是濫用專利排他權的工具。為了畫下專利權人正當行使權利之界限,維護專利制度的政策目的,以規範專利聯盟所產生之專利權濫用問題,美國的法制上遂逐漸發展出以專利權濫用原則(patent misuse doctrine)與競爭法(即美國之反托拉斯法),對專利聯盟進行管制的結構。美國法上之專利權濫用原則創設之初係為了限制輔助侵權理論之適用,此理論最初與競爭法制並無交集,判斷的重點在於專利權人是否逾越其權限,之後隨著1988年美國專利法之修正,以及學理實務的改變,現今專利權濫用原則的認定已牽涉競爭法「合理原則」之判斷,然而,許多爭議也逐漸浮現,例如應如何判斷專利權人在專利聯盟中所為之限制競爭行為是否成立濫用,專利權濫用原則與競爭法之間之關係為何,甚至專利權濫用原則本身是否仍有必要存在,這些問題都尚待解決,因此現今正是對專利權濫用理論進行全面檢討之時機。
本文以下將針對專利聯盟所涉及之專利權濫用問題進行研究,對於實務上專利權人利用專利聯盟所進行之搭售、包裹授權、聯合訂價、競業禁止條款等行為進行觀察,並對其所涉及之專利權濫用問題進行初步分析。基於此一研究所獲得之基礎,本文將嘗試指出專利權濫用理論值得檢討之處,並指出專利權濫用理論兼具專利制度和競爭法制之特質,也反映了兩者間之衝突,其亦具有能夠與時俱進,以及反映專利制度政策公益之特質,因此仍有繼續存在價值。尤其係在專利聯盟成員利用彼此間競業禁止協議抑制新生替代性技術發展之情形,法院在適用競爭法合理原則時,往往因為專利聯盟所創造的促進競爭效益,以及新生技術未來發展的不確定性,而傾向認定此種契約條款為合法,忽略其所產生之抑制創新問題,此時即有適用專利權濫用原則之空間。此外,更可以考慮以我國民法第148條所規範之誠信原則與權利濫用原則作為將專利權濫用理論引入我國法之基礎,而在尚未引入以前,對於專利聯盟所涉及之專利權濫用問題,我國實務可以將美國法專利權濫用原則之理論基礎作為操作民法第148條、專利法第60條、公平交易法第18條及第19條以及其他相關規定時之指導原則。本文之意旨並非在完全以專利權濫用原則取代競爭法規範的角色,而係期待實務上應當設法對專利權濫用原則之價值進行重新評估,以賦予專利權濫用原則嶄新之生命,讓專利權濫用原則與競爭法共同形成一個完善、合理的專利權行使規範體系。 / Patent pool licensing can both create enormous pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects. Without legal intervention, the patentee would be able to manipulate the patent pool system as a mean to increase his own monopoly power, suppress competition in the market, and even misuse his patent exclusive power. In order to prevent the misuse of patent rights, protect patent policy and regulate patent misuse issues in patent pools, the U.S law system employs the “patent misuse doctrine” and competition law (antitrust law) to deal with the above issues. The patent misuse doctrine was initially designed to limit the overexpansion of the contributory infringement theory and has no relationship with competition law. The essential factor to constitute patent misuse is that the patentee extends the patent monopoly over the statutory scope of his patent right. Nevertheless, in pace with the Patent Misuse Reform Act of 1988 and the conversion of the legal practice, the patent misuse doctrine has begun to intertwine with competition law’s “rule of reason” analysis. Gradually, many disputes have emerged, such as how to determine whether the patentee’s conduct constitutes patent misuse in patent pools, what is the relationship between the patent misuse doctrine and competition law, and whether the patent misuse doctrine itself is necessary to exist. Therefore, it is high time to conduct a comprehensive review of the patent misuse theory.
This article will provide insights to patent misuse issues in patent pool licensing, such as tie-in arrangement, package licensing, price fixing, non-competition agreements, etc, and review the theoretical basis of the patent misuse doctrine. This article will also submit that the patent misuse doctrine is a doctrine which has both the characteristics of patent law and competition law and can compromise the interests of these two areas of regulations. It can also reflect patent policy and grow and change with time. Therefore, it is a doctrine which should continue to exist. Particularly, in the situation which patent pool members use non-competition agreements to suppress the development of nascent substitute technologies, courts would often consider this kind of agreement to be legal because of the enormous pro-competitive effects created by the patent pool and the uncertainty of the future development of the nascent technology. At this moment, it is necessary to apply the patent misuse doctrine to deal with the problem. In addition, the principle of good faith which is encoded in article 148 of the civil code may be an appropriate medium to introduce the patent misuse doctrine into our legal system. Even if it is not yet introduced into our system, the patent misuse doctrine could be the guiding principle for our legal practitioners to apply article 148 of the civil code, article 60 of the patent act, article 18 and article 19 of the Fair Trade Act in order to deal with patent misuse issues in patent pool licensing. This article supports that the patent misuse doctrine should be refined and cooperate with competition law in order to form a complete regulation of patent misuse conducts, but it does not submit that current competition law should be entirely replaced by the patent misuse doctrine.
|
Page generated in 0.0162 seconds