智慧財產權法與競爭法之規範分工及衝突-以專利權權利行使規範為中心

Abstract

智慧財產權制度與競爭法間，有其「本質上」之矛盾存在。智慧財產權所擁有之「排他性」有「限制競爭」之可能，而競爭法之規範宗旨之一即為「避免限制競爭」，如此便有所牴觸。然而，此二法制卻擁有共通的目的－促進公眾利益之維護，以及將資源進行有效率之分配。因此，關於智慧財產權法與競爭法兩大法制間之「界線劃分」，長久以來即為備受討論之議題。 而在現代社會，此二法制間之矛盾現象更形明顯，蓋越來越多的事業已將「智慧財產權」視為競爭的利器。因此此二法制間之「界線劃分」，在當代社會仍極具探討實益。 本文將研究標的限縮於智慧財產權中之「專利權」，並以專利權權利行使行為中之「專利授權」及與其處於光譜另一端之「拒絕授權」此二行為態樣作為探討中心。在進行我國、美國以及歐盟法之比較法研究，含各法制之法規及案例研究後，提出本文結論－應以「競爭秩序」作為劃分依據;且論述此一結論所可帶來之實益－標準明確、公眾利益之維護。

There is an inherent conflict between the intellectual property system and the competition laws; the “exclusivity” endowed by the intellectual property laws may be at odds with one of the aims of the competition law. However, the two bodies of law share the same objectives－to promote consumer welfare and to allocate the resources more efficiently. Thus, how to draw the line between these two bodies of law has long been the issue of much concern. Currently, the conflict between the intellectual property system and the competition laws become more obvious, because intellectual properties are more commercially exploited by their owners during the past few decades. As a result, the issue mentioned above is still an inevitable one, much worth of our concern. This essay focuses on the patent right among the intellectual properties, and deals with the issue from “the licensing of patent rights” and the one quite opposite to it－“the refusal to license”. After the comparative study in 3 jurisdictions－Taiwanese, the U.S., and the European Union legal systems, this essay concludes that the “line” should be drawn by the competition system, and in this way, much benefits can be reached, including the requirement of accuracy and the promotion of public welfare.