專利權人於專利侵權事件之舉證責任高低對其經營策略之影響——以我國實務判決及智慧財產案件審理法第 35 條展望為中心

Abstract

專利權基於法律之保護，使企業得以利用專利佈局以維持一定期間內的專屬地位，得保持其競爭優勢。 根據 WIPO 年度統計，全球新增專利申請件數持續逐年增加的趨勢， 而我國的新增專利件數則呈現逐年減少的趨勢， 因此， 冀望能藉由分析我國近三年智慧財產及商業法院之專利侵權訴訟實務判決，以了解我國專利權人面對的法律環境。 以統計數據觀察，我國自民國 109 年至民國 112 年 4 月 6 日近三年的智慧財產及商業法院之專利侵權訴訟事件一審件數，於各年度減少比率皆超過 20%，而專利侵權訴訟事件一審判決結果，專利權人提告每 4 件不到 1 件勝訴，分析權利人訴訟敗訴的原因，專利權人舉證不足、專利權人難以利用侵害專利權訴訟達到權利救濟，為敗訴的重要原因之一。 民國 112 年 2 月 15 日修正通過之智慧財產案件審理法，並將在民國 112 年 8 月 30 日施行。 該新法施行之前，實務判決顯示倘專利權受侵害之權利人提起專利侵權之訴訟，專利權利人須負擔一般舉證責任，幾無民事訴訟法第 277 條但書的適用。 面對專利侵權的證據偏在侵權人的本質，權利人於一般舉證責任的要求下，權利人縱提起侵權訴訟，立即面對難以舉證的困境，致使專利侵權訴訟難為有效之救濟，此減弱企業提起訴訟進行救濟的意願。專利侵權訴訟既難為有效救濟，縱使我國專利法本旨在保護專利權，於實務判決卻反應專利權利人無法於我國得到實質有效的法律保護，此與企業進行專利註冊、維持一定期間的專屬地位之之策略目標有違。 依據民國 112 年智慧財產案件審理法新法第 35 條，將被害專利權利人舉證責任由原本的舉證證明度減輕為釋明，而被控侵權人則需就原告提出之事實及證據具體答辯，應能提高權利人以訴訟達到有效救濟之期待。 惟智審法原法第 10 之 1條於營業秘密案件即少有適用，則新法施行後權利人於專利侵權訴訟能否為有效的訴訟救濟，是足以反應我國此次修法是否對專利權保護實質補強。倘智審法新法施行後，能為法院判決多有適用，則企業以專利侵權訴訟進行權利救濟才有實質意義，彌補現行法律於專利實質保護之不足，此將回應企業於我國進行專利佈局之策略目標，則企業重視我國的專利註冊始為可能，而能助益我國智慧財產權領域發展。

An exclusive right from patent, is a kind of intangible asset, that gains its ground through legislation and is provided with judicial remedies in cases of infringement. Enterprises that deploy the patents would be granted an exclusive position for a limited period to maintain their competitive advantage. According to WIPO’s statistics from 2012 to 2021, the number of new patent applications around the world increases year by year, however, the number of new patent applications in Taiwan shows a declining trend in the same period. Therefore, it is of crucial importance to study Patent infringement litigation judgments in Taiwan and understand the legal environment patentees encounter in Taiwan. The number of first-instance decisions of patent infringement lawsuits in intellectual property court has decreased by more than 20% yearly from 2020 to 2022. In addition, there is less than 1 out of 4 lawsuits filed by the patentees prevailed. Based on the analyzed result from the cases, one of the reasons is that the burden of proof concerning infringements born by the patentees is either too high or the requirement is not reasonable. According to Article 35 of the newly amended Taiwan Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act (hereafter “the IPCA Law”), the burden of proof for the infringed patentee will be moderated, and the defense would be based on the facts and evidence provided by the patentee. Patentee plaintiffs would be more likely to win the lawsuit if Article 35 is adopted more frequently in the near future, then the probability of legal remedies for patentees would increase, although Article 10-1 of the original IPCA Law was rarely applied in trade secret litigations. The new IPCA Law would be an efficacious way for patent protection, and it would be beneficial for enterprises to file patent infringement lawsuits for remedies in case of infringement. That would make sense for enterprises to deploy patents in Taiwan, which would contribute to the strategic goal and would help the development of Taiwan’s intellectual property.