專利紛爭適用訴訟外紛爭解決機制之探討

Abstract

近年來，訴訟外紛爭解決機制(Alternative Dispute Resolution)在現今國際上漸趨重要，除因紐約公約(又稱承認和執行外國仲裁判斷公約Convention of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards)制定後，內國之仲裁判斷在國際上得以順利地為他會員國承認並賦與強制執行效力外，更重要的原因毋寧是科技發展及商業貿易現實之日新月異，紛爭類型相較於司法制度誕生之初已有更加複雜多元之趨勢，紛爭當事人在程序上之需求亦因紛爭類型之不同而隨之差異化，無論紛爭當事人所考量者為時間上之迅速急迫性、程序上之嚴謹或彈性、費用上之經濟性，甚或是對實體真實性的追求，均有寬嚴不一的標準，而傳統的訴訟制度，小額、簡易或普通訴訟，可能僅在標的金額上對於不同程序需求之當事人做出因應，然若面對注重機密性、商業用益性、程序迅速性及科技領域專業性之專利紛爭時，訴訟制度即有其窮，即使在我國司法環境下，有智慧財產法院專門審理之，然法官人數有限，判決結果亦僅在確認權利及義務歸屬而無所謂未來展望性，種種訴訟制度上之先天限制，無法使專利紛爭之程序利益完整地受到顧及，是故，訴訟外紛爭解決機制在專利紛爭上之應用即為一值得探討之課題。 復基於憲法第16條訴訟權所賦予當事人之程序處分權及程序選擇權，當事人為求獲得一值得信賴之救濟，應得行使其程序處分權及程序選擇權，俾其得以衡量各種紛爭事件所涉之實體利益與程序利益後，合意選擇循訴訟或其他法定之非訴訟程序處理爭議，此亦係大法官釋字591號所揭櫫之訴訟權意涵，然於我國現狀下，僅有仲裁及調解兩種訴訟外紛爭解決機制，相較於其他國際或地方之仲裁機構所提供之多元訴訟外紛爭解決機制服務種類而言，仍屬有限，而有必要進一步瞭解並引進更多元的訴訟外紛爭解決機制。 再者，現狀下僅有之仲裁及調解適用於專利紛爭之狀況仍不容樂觀，訴訟制度相較於仲裁及調解仍有許多優勢，且仲裁制度及中華民國仲裁協會新設之促進式調解兩者本身尚有些制度瑕疵，致專利紛爭當事人對於是否適用該等制度仍採保留態度，本文觀察上述缺失之後，欲就訴訟外紛爭解決機制中，立法密度最高、程序最為嚴謹之仲裁先行提出針對專利紛爭之修法芻議，以強化當事人適用仲裁制度之信賴，除參考各仲裁規則立法例後，於專利法內訂立專利仲裁篇章外，更就仲裁法本身提出修正之建議，在理論面及立法論面提出解決方案，更重要者毋寧為執行面上，矯正法官或律師對訴訟外紛爭解決機制之認知，並在工商業界推廣適用訴訟外紛爭解決機制，方能治本地讓訴訟外紛爭解決機制協助專利紛爭當事人滿足其各種程序需求，俾使我國搭上國際上「進入司法」之第三波浪潮 ，充實我國訴訟外紛爭解決制度之內涵。

Recently, Alternative Dispute Resolution becomes increasingly important. Despite of the reason that the arbitration award made within a country could easily get the recognition and enforcement of other countries after the establishment of “Convention of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards”, more importantly, due to the rapid development of technology and commercial circumstance, the diversity of disputes becomes more and more complicated than the birth time of judicial system, the procedure requirement which dispute parties demand become more and more various as well. Whether the dispute parties consider the urgency of solving, the rigorous or flexible procedure, the economic cost, or even the pursuance of reality, they have different level benchmarks of those considerations. Nevertheless, the traditional judiciary system, such as summary proceeding or small-claim proceeding or normal litigation proceeding, just deals with the differentiation of objective’s value, if the concerns like confidentiality, the commercial outcome, the efficiency of the proceedings or the expertise of the technical field, they would confront their extremity. Even though there is a specialized court for the intellectual properties’ disputes, the number of the judges still limited, the trial’s result merely determines the distribution of both parties’ rights, liabilities and obligations without constructing the future relationship. The patent disputes’procedural requirement couldn’t be satisfied because of those litigation’s innate limitation. Thus, the application of alternative dispute resolutions is the emerging issue worth us to study. According to article 16 of Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan), parties in the dispute resolution procedure possess the right of procedural option and the right of procedural disposition. In order to let parties require a reliable resolution, after they measured their procedural and substantive requirements, they could conduct those two procedural rights and selecting whether litigation or other lawful disputes resolution to settle their disputes. This is also the main intention of the 591 Interpretation of Justice. However, in our country’s status quo, there are only these two kinds of alternative disputes resolution,arbitration and mediation. It is still insufficient contrary to the alternative disputes resolution services in other international or domestic arbitration institution. Therefore, it is certainly necessary to explore and introduce much more diverse alternative dispute resolutions into our judicial system. Furthermore, status quo of the application of arbitration and promotive mediation has no room for being optimistic. The litigation still owns some inherent advantages contrary to those two existing alternative dispute resolutions. After the throughout scrutiny to the weakness and defect of them, this paper would focus on the legislative comments of arbitration, which possess the most dense legislative framework and most rigorous procedural restriction among all kinds ofalternative dispute resolutions, so as to improve the reliance of partiescaught in patent dispute. Despite of the legislation of the specialized arbitration chapter in patent act, which referring to various international arbitration rules, this paper further suggests a revision of arbitration rule in order to solve the theoretical and practical problem in arbitrationfor patent dispute. Moreover, on the executive dimension, correcting the judges and lawyers’ cognition of alternative dispute resolutions, and promoting the application of alternative dispute resolutions in the business community. Through this way, our judicial system could utilize the ADR to satisfy patent dispute parties’ various procedural requirements and enhance the content of our country’s dispute resolution framework so as to catch the third wave of “access to justice”.