論專利未實施

Abstract

專利未實施作為強制授權事由存在於專利制度中已有相當時間，不僅多數國家專利法中設有明文，巴黎公約亦為規範之。然我國專利法自1994年專利法修正後，便未見相關內容的立法與討論，故本文分別從專利未實施之定義與性質、專利實施義務的發展、與專利壓制行為間關係，以及強制授權利度等不同面向對專利未實施進行探討。 專利制度的發展歷史揭示了專利制度背後強烈的公益性本質，於觀察專利未實施亦不可忽略此一面向。其中，專利實施義務的課予代表一國專利制度所欲維護的技術移轉以及滿足內國市場需求之公益，強制授權制度中的專利未實施事由成為達成上述公益的主要方式。另外專利未實施伴隨全面性拒絶授權所引發之專利壓制行為，對於技術研發、消費者權益、市場競爭、以及重要社會公益亦恐造成之損害，而有利用專利未實施作為強制授權事由的方式予以救濟之必要。 雖然巴黎公約與TRIPS協定規範上的模糊，造成不同國家間對於專利未實施相關問題產生爭議，但基於尊重各國專利立法政策以保護各國不同公益立場，對於專利未實施與專利未實施義務之容許性，本文認為宜採寬認的解釋態度，允許各國於符合國際規範最低保護要求下，自行決定對於專利未實施的立法方式以及對實施範圍的認定，並藉由強制授權制度調和專利權人私益與其他社會公益，確保專利制度所欲藉由鼓勵創新提昇整體社會福祉之宗旨。

In order to clarify the altitude of R.O.C. on patent non-working, this study reviews the history and controversy of patent local working requirement, problems of technology suppression related to patent non-working, and the development of patent compulsory licensing. In trends of industrialization and globalization, some countries expand their meanings of “working” for patent non-working from industrial working only to commercial working included, which seems to put the local working requirement into an end under TRIPS. This study argues that the local working requirement continues to enjoy a relatively broad discretion under TRIPS, allowing countries to conduct their own working requirement based on their own patent policies. To grant compulsory licenses as remedies for non-local working shall comply with TRIPS as long as it is invoked after certain period prescribed in article 5(A) of the Paris Convention, 1967. After viewing problems of technology suppression related to patent non-working in U.S.A and comparing patent compulsory licensing regulations between EU, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, China and R.O.C, this study concludes that, from public interest point of view, a legislation of granting compulsory license as a remedy for patent non-working is necessary for R.O.C. to fulfill technology transferring and domestic market demand satisfaction purposes.