專利民事訴訟中技術爭點之審理及其參與者

Abstract

本文提出辯論主義之思維模型，並透過對於專利法規及專利審查基準中關於技術之各種概念的探討，輔以司法實務多有採行之見解，論證專利民事訴訟中技術爭點之審理與辯論主義之高度契合性。從而，本文主張，在民事訴訟審理原則之理論生態多樣化的當代，專利訴訟中的技術爭點，其審理原則仍應堅守辯論主義。 作為民事訴訟審判體的法院，係由身為法律專家之法官所組成，惟技術爭點的審理實有仰賴技術專家之需要，因而各國制度多設有法院方及當事人方之專家。依辯論主義進行技術爭點的審理時，應以當事人或其委任之專家所提出之關於技術的事實主張及證據方法為依歸，法院之專家不得逸脫當事人間所爭執技術爭點之範圍，自行提出其技術觀點。 我國2023年智慧財產案件審理法修正之一大重點即為擴大專家參與訴訟，由法院選任之專家除原有之技術審查官外，新增加查證人；由當事人委任之專家除原有之專利師外，亦增加專家證人。專利師作為代理人所提出之陳述，在辯論主義下應屬事實主張之性質；而專家證人之書面意見或到庭陳述，則屬證據方法之性質。可謂我國已然具備適切遵循辯論主義之制度。 本文梳理實務過往之問題以及引介比較法上之啟示，期能為我國智慧財產訴訟之制度或運作發現進一步完善化之線索。

This paper proposes a conceptual framework grounded in the party presentation principle (Verhandlungsmaxime). Through an examination of various technical concepts found within patent statutes and patent examination guidelines, supplemented by views widely adopted in judicial practice, this study demonstrates the high degree of alignment between the adjudication of technical issues in civil patent litigation and the party presentation principle. Accordingly, this paper argues that even within today’s diversified theoretical landscape of civil procedural principles, the adjudication of technical issues in patent litigation must remain steadfastly adhered to the party presentation principle. As the adjudicative body in civil procedures, the court is composed of judges who are legal experts. However, adjudicating technical issues inherently necessitates reliance on technical experts; accordingly, legal systems around the globe generally establish mechanisms for both court-appointed and party-retained experts. When conducting hearings on technical issues under the party presentation principle, the court must, in a strict sense, not depart from the factual assertions and means of evidence submitted by the parties or their retained experts. Court-appointed experts must not depart from the scope of technical issues contested between the parties to independently raise their own technical views. One of the major highlights of the 2023 amendment to Taiwan's Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act was the expansion of expert participation in litigation. Among court-appointed experts, verifiers were added alongside the pre-existing technical examination officers; among party-retained experts, expert witnesses were introduced in addition to patent attorneys. Under the principle of party presentation, statements made by patent attorneys as legal representatives inherently constitute factual assertions, whereas the written opinions or in-court testimonies of expert witnesses function as means of evidence. Consequently, Taiwan’s institutional framework is now well-equipped to properly adhere to the principle of party presentation. By reviewing historical issues in judicial practice and introducing insights from comparative law, this paper seeks to provide clues for the further refinement of Taiwan’s intellectual property litigation framework and its judicial practice.