隨著知識經濟的發展，專利成為企業的重要資產，專利訴訟更成為企業經營管理必修顯學。專利之高度技術內容及其商業化本質，使得專利訴訟成為技巧最複雜、成本最高昂、耗費時間也最冗長的救濟程序，終而引發各界對於專利訴訟制度之反思，開始強調應循公平、合理、迅速、經濟、專業之糾紛解決程序來排解專利糾紛。美國於1982年制訂專利法第294條開放專利有效性及專利侵權爭議得由當事人自願提付仲裁，聯合國國際貿易委員會於1985年制訂國際商務仲裁模範法（UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration），作為各會員國仲裁法制之參考藍本，世界智慧財產權組織（World Intellectual Property Organization，WIPO）亦於1994年成立「仲裁與調解中心」為智慧財產案件提供專業性及跨國性之糾紛解決服務。上開仲裁立法及機構設置均顯示專利仲裁制度之發展與成長。 專利是一種權利保護期間短暫、權利範圍不明確、保護客體高度技術化，且集結科技、法律、管理三大專業於一身之權利，其糾紛解決對於迅速性、專業性、經濟性、秘密性、靈活性、和諧性、跨國性及風險控制性之需求，正係仲裁程序所能提供之優點。惟專利權與仲裁程序仍有本質上之互斥，包括：專利權之獨佔性及其背後蘊含之龐大商機，吸引專利權人寧願循訴訟途徑奮戰到底；專利糾紛當事人之實力差距，使得雙方難以達成仲裁協議；專利糾紛對於調查證據之強烈需求，與仲裁程序強調之迅速、經濟致生衝突；專利判決的不確定性，以致專利案件約有50％的上訴成功率，此亦促使當事人欲循訴訟程序爭取由上訴審法官重新審視案件，而不願意循仲裁程序「一戰定江山」。 經本文就我國企業專利糾紛循仲裁程序解決進行分析，發現有下列幾點之限制：一、我國企業客觀實力不足，主觀心態復趨於保守，導致企業之糾紛程序選擇權受到一定的限制。二、仲裁程序以當事人合意為前提，雙方就現在之爭議欲達成仲裁協議，本即有一定之難度。三、我國仲裁法未開放專利有效性糾紛之仲裁容許性，權利有效性問題仍待行政法院認定，致生程序切割及審理時程延宕之不利益。四、我國仲裁制度因仲裁人之公正、獨立性有待加強、證據法則規範不夠完整且未能落實，導致程序正義不彰，當事人對仲裁制度信賴感普遍不足。五、我國仲裁法未明文賦予仲裁人核准保全程序之權限，當事人仍須向法院聲請假扣押、假處分裁定，不但緩不濟急，法官對於應否進行保全程序及核准為何種保全措施，其掌握度亦不如仲裁人。六、我國非紐約公約簽約國，以致於我國仲裁判斷面臨難以於外國獲得承認及執行之困境。上述幾點，都是我國企業專利糾紛欲循仲裁程序解決所面臨之限制因素。 有鑑於專利仲裁於我國企業之主要活躍領域，即美國與中國，已逐步成熟發展，本文謹建議我國企業面臨專利糾紛程序選擇時，應考量糾紛之目的及類型，以決定是否適用仲裁程序。若適用之，則需作好仲裁策略規劃，對於仲裁協議、仲裁地、仲裁機構、仲裁人、仲裁程序均應為適當之安排，以爭取最有利之仲裁判斷。 本文最末則自短程及長程觀點，對我國專利仲裁之發展提出建議。短程而言，我國企業就單純的法律解釋爭議、訟爭性不高或彼此間存有持續性合作關係之專利契約，宜約定仲裁條款；就專利侵權糾紛則得透過互相退讓之方式，約定就專利有效性爭議不為爭執，或同意被告之損害賠償上限，以換取適用仲裁之空間。長程而言，於仲裁立法面，我國應於仲裁法或專利法明文開放專利糾紛之仲裁容許性、增訂仲裁程序之調查證據規範、明文立法賦予仲裁庭核准保全程序之權限；於仲裁制度面，應提升仲裁人之公正性、獨立性及自律性、加強仲裁人之專業及制訂專業之專利仲裁規則；於企業策略面，建議企業應依專利糾紛之目的及類型為適當之程序選擇，如適用仲裁程序，則應妥善配置仲裁要素，規劃出最有利之仲裁程序。 / As the knowledge-based economy rapidly grows today, patent rights has become one of the most valuable assets of corporation. Patent litigation becomes the most important commercial method to generate massive revenue in nowadays. Patents usually involve complicated technology and commercial elements and patent litigation procedure is usually complicated, time consuming and mostly very expensive. Hence, new solutions, which are more fair, reasonable, rapid, economic and professional, are proposed to replace litigations. In the U.S., the Congress approved 35 U.S.C. 294 in 1982 to regulate rules allowing dispute parties may voluntary initiate binding arbitration procedure in regard with patent validity and infringement issues. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration enacted in 1985 offered as prototype of arbitration legislation for UN members. In 1994, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center was established to offer professional and cross-broader Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) options for the resolution of intellectual property disputes between private parties. All these reforms show the development and growth of patent arbitration. Patent are characterized with limitations on period of protection, scope of claim and advanced technology. It involves with the knowledge of law, technology and commerce. Thus it will be required to deal with patent dispute with efficiency, profession, confidentiality, economic, flexibility, multi-nation and risk control when one decides which dispute resolution method to adopt, and arbitration is exactly the ADR method that satisfies all the requirements. Nevertheless, the exclusivity and the great commercial interests inherent behind patent litigation attract patentees to enforce their patent rights through courts regime. The difference in financial strength and interest leads to a difficulty for different parties to achieve an agreement. Extensive discovery procedure is almost compulsory in patent infringement litigation so that information between parties can be fully disclosed through the process. On the other hand, information disclosure is limited in arbitration proceedings. Also the parties may appeal a patent case in court, and it has an approximately 50% win rate in such attempt. All these factors decrease the parties’ intention to settle their case by arbitration. Through the case study and analysis of the Taiwan companies on patent litigation and arbitration history, it is not difficult to discover the deficiency of Taiwan’s current arbitration regime. The shortage in resource and unwillingness to take arbitral procedure restricts Taiwan companies to exercise they right to select dispute resolution procedure. Mutual consensus is the key priority for arbitration, but this could be extremely difficult to achieve on given patent dispute. Patent validity cannot be determined through the arbitration under current Taiwan Arbitration Law and needs to be determined by court, which prolongs the arbitral proceedings. Moreover, the professional ability of Taiwan’s arbitration remains in doubt, in terms of lack of fairness, independence and evidence rules, led the untrustworthiness of our arbitration regime. The arbitral tribunal has no authority to order interim measures, such as provisional seizure and preliminary injunction and Taiwan is not a signature party of New York Convention are also the factors that weaken the value of arbitration procedure in Taiwan. In comparison with the system in Taiwan, China and the U.S. patent arbitration are more systematized and are still increasing in numbers in both China and the United States. This thesis shall point out the factors for parties to consider adopting arbitration as patent dispute resolution, and assist parties to plan arbitration strategies. Lastly, this thesis will give suggestions on Taiwan’s patent arbitration regime development in both short and long terms. In short term, the public should be more aware the benefits by adopting arbitration clause in contract, when argument and disagreement might exist merely on obvious legal definition or less argument presented or when collaboration still exist between parties. This will encourage parties to agree to solve their dispute through arbitration in advance. In long term, legislators should regulate more detailed rules on arbitration procedure, evidence rules, and judicial support. Arbitration institutions should increase the training, improve the quality of arbitrators and develop more conscientious procedure rules. Corporation should have the concepts to learn and understand more about arbitration, and takes arbitration into consideration as commerce strategy in advance.

智慧財產案件審理法第16條揭示當事人抗辯智慧財產權有應撤銷、廢止之原因者，法院應就其主張或抗辯有無理由自為判斷，不適用相關法律停止訴訟程序之規定。前項情形，法院認有撤銷之原因時，智慧財產權人於該民事訴訟中不得對於他造主張權利。上開規定之意旨在於使同一智慧財產權所生之紛爭得於同一訴訟程序中一次解決，以對智慧財產權作有效保護。 依據上開規定，專利有效性之議題即可能為專利侵權訴訟程序及舉發程序所審理。兩程序審理之情形下，專利有效性之認定即可能會因對同一證據事實有不同見解而使認定結果產生歧異（嚴格定義下之判決歧異）或因證據/請求權基礎之不同而產生歧異（假性之判決歧異）。 民事法院和行政機關/法院於發明、新型及新式樣專利對專利有效性具兩歧認定之比例分別為所有抗辯專利有效性案件之6.8%、16%及12%。具歧異認定之案件中約有8%係因對同一證據之處理方式不同。約66%之案件係起因於呈送之證據有別及主張之撤銷理由不同，而此歧異認定或可於後續程序化解。另約有8%歧異認定之案件係因智慧局之見解受到先前經濟部對該見解之拘束，此分歧認定之結果或需藉由救濟程序才得化解。又約有16%具歧異認定之案件係因民事法院非以舉發程序中構成「舉發成立」之要件審酌系爭專利是否具撤銷事由，此歧異認定之結果尚需仰賴救濟程序始得化解。 民事法院倘非以舉發成立要件審酌專利有效性，則其審酌範疇可能涵蓋：得據以舉發事由、未達得據以舉發標準之事由、專利法及施行細則中得據以使申請案不予專利或不受理之事由。而有違誠信原則之事由亦可能受到審查，使系爭專利有不可執行之虞。倘民事訴訟有效性抗辯得涵蓋上開事由，則可預見本質不良但被智慧局誤准之專利將有去除之途徑，公眾利益即得以維護；專利申請人於申請過程中較可能考慮遵循誠信原則；且專利糾紛得以完全於一訴訟程序一併解決。專利環境或可能朝優質化、誠信化及效率化發展。於此架構下，侵權訴訟專利有效性抗辯機制及舉發程序之雙軌制審理即各有實質存在意義。 專利權人於台灣侵權訴訟具專利有效性抗辯案件之勝訴比約10%；敗訴案件中，發明、新型及新式樣專利被認定具無效事由之比例約為48%、65%及40%。審理法施行以來，舉發申請案之案件量約僅減少6%至7%，或隱含專利侵權訴訟不僅未於一定程度取代舉發制度更可能因而使當事人必需同時面對侵權訴訟與舉發程序雙軌戰場之處境。 審理法第16條之施行加快民事訴訟審結速度，達到迅速實現訴訟當事人權利保護之立法目的。而專利權所生之紛爭於同一訴訟程序中一次解決之目的，依檢驗角度之不同而有截然不同之結果，因此或可說未全然達到紛爭一次解決之立法目的。 / Article 16 of Intellectual Property Case Adjunction Act in Taiwan reveals that when a party claims or defends that an intellectual property right shall be cancelled, the court shall decide based on the merit of the case and the relevant laws concerning the stay of an action shall not apply.　Under the circumstances in the preceding paragraph, the holder of the intellectual property right shall not claim any rights during the civil action against the opposing party where the court has recognized the grounds for cancellation of the intellectual property right. The main purpose of the article is to solve the disputes over Intellectual Property Right in one litigation proceeding so as to protect the intellectual property right effectively. According to said article, the validity issue of a patent may be dealt with under civil litigation and invalidation proceedings. Under the circumstances, the decisions on the validity issue of a patent may be diverged due to different perceptions on the same evidence/fact (defined in this article as “actual decision divergence”) or different submitted evidences or instituted grounds (defined in this article as “fake decision divergence”). With respect to invention, utility model, and design patents, about 6.8%, 16% and 12% of cases with invalidity defense respectively had decision divergence between civil court and administrative organization/court. Among patents with decision divergence, around 8% of the patents were due to different perceptions of the same evidence. About 66% of the patents were deemed differently due to different evidences and instituted grounds. This discrepancy may be resolved in subsequent proceedings. Around 8% of the patents having divergent decisions were resulted from that the opinion of Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) is confined by that in a previous administrative action issued by its superior organization, the Board of Appeal. This discrepancy may need to be resolved through a remedial procedure. Approximately 16% of the patents were determined differently because the civil court adopted different standards for initiating an invalidation action. This type of discrepancy may only be resolved through a remedial procedure. When the civil court uses its own standards in determining the validity issue of the patent in question, the scope of judicial review might include: the grounds of invalidation proceedings, the grounds of invalidation proceedings with loosened standards, the grounds attributed to a patent being rejected or an application to be inacceptable to TIPO based on Patent Act or the Enforcement Rules of Patent Act. In addition, inequitable conduct might also be reviewed. Under the circumstances, defective patents have a chance to be removed, a duty of candor and good faith would be more likely to be followed during prosecution; patent disputes are able to be reviewed entirely in one proceeding. It is expected that the quality of the patent system would be improved. Moreover, either the invalidity defense mechanism in infringement litigation, or the invalidation proceeding serves its own purpose. For patent infringement cases with invalidity defense, plaintiffs won about 10% of the cases. Among the cases lost by plaintiffs, the patent at issue deemed by civil court as invalid accounted for about 48%, 65% and 40% for invention, utility model and design patents respectively. Since the IP Case Adjudication Act took effect, the number of invalidation cases has decreased about 6-7%, which might indicate that the invalidity defense mechanism in infringement litigation does not replace the invalidation proceeding. The regulation of Article 16 of IP Case Adjudication Act speeds up civil proceedings indicating that the legislative purpose of providing effective protection to parties in IP litigation may be realized. However, the legislative purpose of solving patent disputes in one proceeding may not be achieved fully as the test results vary on the basis of different evaluation criteria.