政府採購規格涉及專利之同等品範圍問題研究

Abstract

政府採購規格之制定，除了涉及能否滿足採購機關需求之外，更重要的是能否擴大更多的公平競爭。政採法對於採購規格之制定原則上應依功能、效益及標準說明招標要求，例外在「無法以精確方式說明招標要求」時，得以提及特定之商標或商名、專利等並註明「或同等品(Or Equivalent)」字樣。“Equivalent”一詞意指相當的意思，同一名詞使用於不同法律中，卻具有不同的作用。在專利法上，利用「均等論(Doctrine of Equivalents)」來判斷相近似物品或方法是否構成侵害專利權，而賦予專利權人一定期間排他性獨占權利，具有限制競爭之效果。然而，在政採法上，卻利用「或同等品」機制使相近似的物品或方法得參與政府採購，以擴大公平競爭。當採購標的涉及專利問題時，如依政採法第26條3項在例示之特定專利，或隱藏專利之其他層級標準之後加註「或同等品」，則可能發生特定之排他性獨占權利的專利是否同時存在同等的其他專利、方法、或物品、標準之疑義，屬於政府採購法、標準法、專利法交會之法律解釋適用之問題。研究結論茲分述如次：1.我國同等品機制的評估決策模式係採「非補償性模式」分類中的「連結模式」，同等品必須具備所有應接受評估的屬性項目，且各屬性項目的表現結果必須均不低於所要求的評估基準值。2.符合「公眾適用標準」要件則有可能被引用成為政府採購規格內容，主管機關見解擴張同等品機制之適用範圍衍生「標準同等」問題，「標準同等」之判準建議參考「ISO/IEC GUIDE 21」。3.當採購規格中如涉及專利問題，由於專利權之排他性容易衍生不當限制競爭之綁標爭議，政採法第22條第1項第2款「專屬權利」與第26條第3項之「專利」範圍不包括新式樣專利。4.專利與標準結合有所謂「標準綁架現象」與「潛水艇專利」之不當限制競爭問題。當我國國家標準或國際標準無法滿足需求或有所欠缺之際，因而引用前述兩者以外之團體標準，如於其中隱匿專利權，而可能衍生排他性或獨占性之不當限制競爭之效果。另外，隱藏專利權之「事實上標準」一旦具有自然獨占或寡占市場時，於政府採購規格中引用此項標準，必然導致不當地排除其他廠商參與競爭效果。5.關於政府採購規格涉及專利之同等品範圍問題，建議勿將「技術手段(Way)」列入同等基準之比對項目以避免不當限制競爭。

The coverage of the prescription of government procurement specification should not merely include the procurement requirements of the procurement agent being satisfied, but, more importantly, boost fair competition. Government Procurement Act (GPA) is supposed to prescribe procurement specification in terms of function, performance, or standard, but in case that there is no sufficiently precise or intelligible way of describing the procurement requirements, a particular trademark, trade name, patent, etc. can be referred to noted with words such as “or equivalent”. The term “equivalent” is used to gain different ends as the law concerned changes. In Patent Law, the term “Doctrine of Equivalents” is applied to judge whether or not patent infringement is posed as a result of a similar item or method, which thus entitles the patentee to the exclusive right within a certain period of time, so that a restriction of competition is carried into effect. Government Procurement Act, on the other hand, legalizes the use of a similar item or method in government procurement by the name of “or equivalent,” which thus boosts fair competition. When the patent problem is involved in procurement specification, e.g., when the standard of specific patent or hidden patent is noted with “or equivalent” as referred in GPA Article 26-III, and thus potential problems arise concerning equivalent patent, method, item, or standard which coincide with specific patent having exclusive right, GPA, Standard Law, and Patent Law should, in this case, converge for explanation of applicability. To conclude, this study suggests that when it comes to the issue about Patent of Government Procurement Specification, “the way” in F.W.R. is not recommended being listed in the equivalent feature matching model for fear that there is improper restriction of competition.