論專利侵權損害賠償之計算

Abstract

專利侵權的損害賠償是專利制度能否發揮功用的關鍵，但目前實務上對於損害賠償的計算尚未建立明確的標準，造成專利權人難以利用侵權訴訟保護其專利權。本論文的目的即在以現行專利法的規定為基礎，建構一套能夠精確衡量並充分填補專利權人的損害，而且具有可預測性的損害計算方法。所採用的研究方法包括文獻閱讀探討、法律經濟分析、美日比較法研究以及實務見解整理。 本論文首先討論美國法、日本法和台灣法上專利侵權損害賠償的成立要件，以侵害類型、免責事由和主觀要件為重點。接著引入法律經濟分析的觀點，檢視傳統侵權行為法的因果關係要件，並重新建構一套比例的因果關係理論，以解決專利侵權案件中因果關係如何認定的問題。在比較法方面，主要介紹美國法和日本法實務上，對於所失利益和合理權利金這兩種損害計算方法所建立的具體標準。最後則透過判決整理，探討台灣實務上如何適用專利法所規定的各種損害計算方法，並根據前面所建構的所失利益、因果關係等理論，以及參考美日法例，對實務見解提出批評與建議。 本論文對台灣法的建議有四：第一，應認清「差額法」負有因果關係舉證責任倒置的功能，並區分其與「具體損害法」所適用的情形不同，且應加強論證所失利益與侵害行為間的因果關係；第二，應釐清「利益法」的法理基礎，若屬損害賠償則應修正為「推定」規定，若屬不法無因管理則應限於「故意」才有適用；第三，新增訂的合理權利金可參考美日實務上所提出的審酌因素，並以之作為損害賠償額的下限；第四，關於懲罰性賠償，可參考美國法以侵權通知與專家意見為中心，建立故意侵權的認定標準。

Damage for patent infringement is the foundation of patent system. However, a clear standard of damage estimation has not been established in practice. Consequently it is difficult for the patentees to protect their patents by raising infringement litigations. The purpose of this paper is to establish a predictable approach for estimating damages based on the Patent Act which can precisely measure and compensate the damages. The research methods include literature review, economic analysis, comparative law and case study. At the beginning this paper compares the requirements of damages for patent infringement in the United States, Japan and Taiwan, focusing on the infringement types, the exceptions and subjective requisites. Furthermore, this paper reviews the causation theory in traditional tort law in the view of economic analysis, and reconstructs a theory of proportional causation applicable to patent infringement. In comparative law, two methods to estimate damages, lost profits and reasonable royalty, in the United States and Japan are demonstrated. Finally, this paper shows by case study that in Taiwan how the courts apply the methods of damage estimation provided in the Patent Act. And suggestions are porposed based on the causation theory and comparative law. This paper proposes four suggestions as follows: First, the courts should recognize that “the balance method” is the inversion of burden of proof about causation and thus is different from “the real damages method”. And the establishment of causation should be strengthened. Second, the legal base of “the benefits method” should be clarified. It should be amended as presumptive rule if based on principle of damage, or it should be limited to intentional infringement if based on “management of affairs without mandate”. Third, when assessing the reasonable royalty, the courts can refer to the factors proposed in the United States and Japan cases. And the reasonable royalty should be the minimum of damages. Forth, as to the punitive damages, the courts can establish a standard of judgement for intentional infringement based on the infringement notice and legal advice from counsel.