Le droit de brevet, sacralisé par sa qualification de droit de propriété, et renforcé par les dispositions des accords internationaux et des lois nationales, est facilement susceptible d'acquisition et d'exercice abusive. En outre, la défaillance de certains offices des brevets amplifie les possibilités de l'appropriation abusive. Les situations de l'acquisition abusive du droit de brevet sont plus fréquentes dans le secteur des hautes technologies (l'industrie pharmaceutique, la biotechnologie et l'industrie de l'informatique). Ces abus, d'une part, entravent la réalisation de la fonction assignée au droit de brevet et, d'autre part, restreignent la liberté de la concurrence. Les dispositions du droit des brevets et celles du droit de la concurrence imposent des limites au pouvoir des brevetés, pouvoir issu de leur droit privatif, afin de réaliser l'intérêt général. Cependant, ces deux corps de règles ne viennent pas au secours des particuliers dont les intérêts privés peuvent être atteints par l'usage abusif du droit de brevet. La théorie de l'abus de droit, principe général du droit commun, comble cette lacune. Malgré son application limitée et prudente en matière du droit de brevet, son utilité n'est pas à négliger. Elle permet de prévenir et de sanctionner l'usage anormal du droit de brevet. La comparaison entre le droit français et égyptien montre que la différence du niveau de développement économique et industriel entre les pays influe sur leur politique législative à l'égard du droit des brevets. / Patent law is easily subject to acquisition and abusive exercise although it's sacred due to his qualification of property rights and strengthened by the international agreements and national laws. The failure of some patent offices amplifies the possibilities of this abusive appropriation. Situations of abuse of patent rights are more frequent in the high technology sector (pharmaceutical, biotechnology and computer industry).On the one hand, these abuses hinder the realization of the function assigned to patent law, and on the other hand, they restrict freedom of competition. The legal measures of patent law and those of competition law impose limits on the power of the patentees which is stemming from their exclusive right, to realize the general interest. However, these rules don't protect private individuals whose interests can be affected by the abusive use of patent rights. The theory of abuse of law, a general principle of the common law, fills this gap. In spite of its limited and prudent application on the patent right, its utility is not to neglect. It helps to prevent and to sanction the abnormal use of the patent right. The comparison between the Egyptian and French law shows that the difference in the level of economic and industrial development between the two countries affects their legislative policy with regards to patent law.

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.

本論文主要是在探討現行公平交易法第四十五條「依照著作權法、商標法或專利法行使權利之正當行為，不適用本法之規定」，其中有關專利權之部分。蓋專利權屬於智慧財產權之一種，係國家以法律授予私人的一種獨占、排他權利，亦即，專利權人就其所獲之專利請求範圍，係處於一種法定專有排除他人未經其同意而製造、販賣、使用或進口該專利之獨占權能地位。專利法藉由此一賦予專利權人特定期間之專屬排他權 (Exclusive Right)/獨占壟斷權，以提供一定之經濟上利益為誘因，藉此鼓勵發明人『公開』符合可專利要件；而競爭法制係為維護公平、自由競爭秩序與環境而必須規範獨占、聯合、結合等限制競爭行為及不公平競爭行為，兩者之糾結關係應如何釐清？素有經濟憲法高地位之稱之競爭法制，應如何在法律特設專利獨占權之制度目的考量下，揮舞它這把大刀？又法律特設專利獨占權之制度目的，又會如何影響競爭法制規制專利權利之界線，是本文想要探究、嘗試解決之議題亦為本文研究目的所在。 鑑於目前我國對於公平交易法第四十五條之法律定位爭議甚大，復以目前我國對於專利權之正當權利行使行為之實務摸索尚處於萌芽之未臻成熟階段，本文擬以專利制度之制度目的及專利財產之本質出發，再借鏡國美國法制百餘年之行政執法、司法實務之實證觀察方式，試圖對目前我國越來越多之專利權權利行使與公平交易法之交錯相關議題及爭議，提出一些可能的思考方向與解決之道，並以法律體系解釋、法律目的解釋、市場經濟以及專利制度之制度目的等思維角度，嘗試定義公平交易法第四十五條之專利權正當權利行使行為，並將本文所建議之審查基準與審查步驟作成審查流程圖，作為本文之總結。