智慧財產法制變遷中權利濫用理論的角色變化

Abstract

權利濫用是法律中存在已久的概念，要求權利之行使不得超出合理之界限。但每當論及濫用，其富有彈性而模糊的概念內涵與不確定性，並不易歸納出一體適用的標準，而必須視法制發展進程、個案情況加以判斷。而智慧財產權的無體性及近代發展的迅速與多變，更讓智慧財產領域中涉及權利濫用的案件，相較傳統物權濫用案件的判斷標準更加浮動，構成濫用的類型也更加豐富。 由於智慧財產權具有很濃的政策色彩，提供獨佔利益與經濟誘因，藉以交換技術的公開或知識的生產流通；或者是保障交易秩序的公共利益。這使得智慧財產為了達成政策目的，本身就有許多的權利限制。「原則」權利可以行使，「例外」權利會受到限制。而權利濫用在明文的權利限制之外，將超出合理界限的權利行使指認出來，並賦與其「不得行使」甚至喪失權利。此種「例外的例外」在整體智財法制的定位為何？如何與法律明文的原則、例外互動？是本論文關心的重點。 本論文從智慧財產權的權利內容與權利濫用理論內涵的考察出發，嘗試建構出權利濫用在智慧財產領域運作的空間，並指出智慧財產權與一般財產權相異的特性，以及專利、著作、商標三種智慧財產權的相異目的，於智財領域中運用權利濫用需謹慎區分考量。接續歸納對美國、日本的智慧財產權利濫用實務案件與學說的歷史發展，了解美國智慧財產權利濫用從「超出權利範圍」到「違反競爭秩序」的價值過渡；以及日本利用權利濫用理論，突破專利有效性與侵權行為分屬不同審判權造成的問題，藉以反思台灣在智慧財產濫用案件中，體系的缺乏與論述的不足。 智慧財產權邁入新時代，權利種類和行使方式均發生變遷，造成許多新興問題，而有檢討智財法制的聲浪出現。基於權利濫用具有建構不法要素、明確權利範圍、調和利益等功能，本論文認為智慧財產權利濫用，應重新定位於「明確化權利內容」、「增進智慧財產為公眾近用可能」、「類型化不當行為形成權利限制」。而擴大權利濫用的運用、開拓新的濫用類型，將有助於緩和新問題產生和修法的速度落差，並重新確認智慧財產制度追求之價值，促進智慧財產法制的修正。最後並以美國專利法修正之歷程為鑑，對台灣智慧財產權濫用的理論運用與立法，提出建議。

The doctrine of abuse of rights draws the boundary of enforcing rights. But the ambiguity and uncertainty of the concept give this doctrine an elusive nature, changing with development of law system, judging case by case. In the region of intellectual property (IP), the doctrine of abuse of rights becomes even more difficult to grasp than in real property, due to the fast changing and intangible nature of IP. IP law contains a hefty dose of policy factors. Providing exclusive privilege for technology in exchange of publication, economic incentive to create culture and artwork, or protecting trademark against consumer confusion. In order to accomplish these purpose, IP law imposed many limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights within. On the other hand, doctrine of IP abuse (or misuse) as exceptions of law also restricted inadequate behavior or enforcement conduct by right holder. What is the difference between these restrictions? Is there any connection or interaction between restrictions? These are the main concern of this thesis. Start with summarizing the content of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and The doctrine of abuse of rights, this thesis attempts to figure out all the difference between IPRs and real property, and the that difference between patent, copyright and trademark which will affect using of doctrine of abuse. Second, exploring the history of misuse, inadequate conduct and other abuse of IPRs cases in America and Japan, to examine the practice of IPRs abuse in Taiwan with these international experience. In the new age of IP, the shifting of IPRs content and the diversified way of performance have triggered a wave of rethinking about IP system. To moderate these conflict, the exercising of IP abuse doctrine become more and more important. To reform IP laws, the perspective of IP abuse doctrine is indispensable. The proper use of doctrine of abuse could help us recall the purpose of IP system. Changing with IP regime, the core function of doctrine of abuse in IP should be clarify the boundaries of rights, enhance public using and categorize new abuse conduct for further amendment.