中國各地區訴前禁令的申請概況

第三章、中國訴前禁令的司法判斷共分八節。該章節於說明中國 訴前禁令的法律規定，其分析最高人民法院所頒佈的「關於對訴前停 止侵犯專利權行為適用法律若干問題的規定」一一說明，其中共分八 節說明之。第一節、中國訴前禁令的說明；第二節、中國訴前禁令的 相關法律規定；第三節、中國訴前禁令之實體審查要件；第四節、對 於訴前禁令侵權行為的具體實施；第五節、訴前停止侵犯知識產權行 為措施的解除；第六節、中國專利侵權訴訟中的證據保全問題；第七 節、被申請人對訴前禁令的救濟；第八節、對於訴前禁令其他相關問 題的思考。

第四章、中國專利侵權訴訟訴前禁令的實務運作分析研究。 目的 希望經過國際 TRIPS 關於臨時禁令的規定原則及美國、台灣兩國多年 法律執行訴前禁令或定暫時狀態處分的實務判斷，進而回來端看中國 自 2000 年將訴前禁令訂入專利法後，在中國各地法院實際關於訴前禁 令審判實務的統計及分析。其中更以中國珠海炬力與美國矽碼特在 mp3 產品的專利訴訟，所引發專利本訴之戰的前哨戰。其內分三節，

第一節、中國各地區訴前禁令的申請概況; 第二節、中國專利侵權訴訟 訴前禁令案例說明; 第三節、關於中國訴前禁令的裁定實證結果。

第五章、研究結論。經過上述四個章節的分析說明，比較法律規 定與各地法院執行所遇之問題在此章節再一次提出。 並以中國珠海炬 力為取的的中國訴前禁令在此專利訴訟戰爭中取的優勢，進一步達成

商業和解。將此過程的相關經驗再次提出說明，希望能夠作為未來立 法者的參考。

第二章、中國訴前禁令制度之立法沿革與發展

第一節、TRIPs 專利權及臨時禁令的的規範原則

第一、TRIPs 專利權規範原則

近年來世界經濟活動的日益熱絡，國與國之間的關係儼然也成為 企業與企業間的關係，同時各國的相關法令的制度規章也深深影響企 業國際化的經營策略，其中高科技產業更深各國專利法的影響。所以 瞭解企業經營以國為基楚的專利法更是決定企業國際化的前哨戰。

在專利權上規則限制必然是 TRIPs (Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) 「與貿易有關的專利權協議」

是歷經7 年的討論與協調，在各會員國折衝妥協的情形下，烏拉圭回 合談判終於在1993 年12 月15 日達成最終協議，其中包含應建立世 界貿易組織以及要求所有世界貿易組織之會員均必須自動接受所有烏 拉圭回合談判鎖定的協議。

由於專利制度到國際企業的對於社會利益的影響極大，基於主權 獨立的原則，各國的專利制度隨著各國的經濟發展程度、國家產業政 策等不同國情而有不同之立法價值與法律制訂；這樣的差異在已開發 國家與開發中國家對於專利權之保護尤其明顯。然而，由於這個世界 已成為地球村，人類全體利益休戚與共，每個國家均不能獨善其身，

而其中TRIPs 遂成為世界貿易組織對於智慧財產權方面所管理之國際 協定，規範了有關的實體及程序事項。

台灣自2002 年1 月1 日正式成為世界貿易組織會員，在保護專利 權部分應符合該協定規定，其中當然包括關於司法救濟程序部分之全 部規定。 針對會員國於其國內有關智慧財產權之司法救濟程序重要原 則，TRIPs 第三篇中有著相關規定，其主要目的有二，第一、為確保 該司法救濟程序可有效保障智慧財產權人，第二、確保合法之貿易不 會因此遇到障礙，並規定防制機制以防止該司法救濟程序遭到濫用⁶。

6 Adrian Otten and Hannu Wager， Compliance with TRIPS: The Emerging World View，

Vanderbilt

Journal of Transnational Law， Vol. 29， p. 408(1996)

以規範目的來看，有關TRIPS 司法救濟程序之規定大體上則可區分 為：程序保障、迅速簡要、證據調查、終局救濟、刑事制裁等五大範 疇其中。例如在實體部分，已開發國家認為智慧財產權屬於私權(private right)，而必須與其他有體財產權同受保護；但開發中國家則認為應屬 於公共財(public goods)，應係用來幫助經濟、衛生及科技之發展，故 在保護上應有所限制。又在程序部分，由於以往在世界智慧財產權組 織（the World Intellectual Property Organization，簡稱 WIPO）架構 下，並無強而有效之執行規範以要求各國促使其國內之業者與人民遵 守巴黎公約或伯恩公約，故各已開發國家咸認應趁設較具體明確之救 濟程序等相關規定；反之，開發中國家則認為關於救濟程序的規範只 要有原則性的規定即可，且應承認開發中國家關於智慧財產權之執行 的行政與財政等基礎設施之不足。⁷

一、程序保障:

TRIPS 第41條規定「1.會員應確保本篇所定之執行程序於其國內 法律有所規定，以便對本協定所定之侵害智慧財產權行為，採行有效 之行動，包括迅速救濟措施以防止侵害行為及對進一步之侵害行為產 生遏阻之救濟措施。前述程序執行應避免對合法貿易造成障礙，並應 提供防護措施以防止 其濫用。 2.有關智慧財產權之執行程序應公平且 合理。其程序不應無謂的繁瑣或過於耗費，或予以不合理之時限或任 意的遲延。 3.就案件實體內容所作之決定應儘可能以書面為之，並載 明理由，而且至少應使涉案當事人均能迅速取得該書面；前揭決定，

僅能依據已予當事人答辯機會之證據為之。 4.當事人應有權請求司法 機關就其案件最終行政決定為審查，並至少在合於會員有關案件重 要 性的管轄規定條件下，請求司法機關就初級司法實體判決之法律見解 予以審查。但會員並無義務就已宣判無罪之刑事案件提供再審查之機 會。 5.會員瞭解，本篇所規定之執行，並不強制要求會員於其現有之 司法執行系統之外，另行建立一套有關智慧財產權之執行程序；亦不 影響會員執行其一般國內法律之能力。」⁸

7張宇樞，TRIPs 架構下智慧財產權司法救濟程序之研究-以美台現行實務運作模式之比較分析 為核心， 交大科法所碩士論文，2004 年，頁 215。

8 TRIPS Article 41 “1. Members shall ensure that enforcement procedures as specified in this Part are available under their national laws so as to permit effective action against any act of

二、迅速簡要

infringement of intellectual property rights covered by this Agreement， including expeditious remedies to prevent infringements and remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringements. These procedures shall be applied in such a manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to legitimate trade and to provide for safeguards against their abuse. 2. Procedures concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights shall be fair and equitable. They shall not be unnecessarily complicated or costly， or entail unreasonable time- limits or unwarranted delays. 3. Decisions on the merits of a case shall preferably be in writing and reasoned. They shall be made available at least to the parties to the proceeding without undue delay. Decisions on the merits of a case shall be based only on evidence in respect of which parties were offered the opportunity to be heard. 4. Parties to a proceeding shall have an opportunity for review by a judicial authority of final administrative decisions and， subject to jurisdictional provisions in national laws concerning the importance of a case， of at least the legal aspects of initial judicial decisions on the merits of a case. However， there shall be no obligation to provide an opportunity for review of acquittals in criminal cases. 5. It is understood that this Part does not create any obligation to put in place a judicial system for the enforcement of intellectual property rights distinct from that for the enforcement of laws in general， nor does it affect the capacity of Members to enforce their laws in general. Nothing in this Part creates any obligation with respect to the distribution of resources as between enforcement of intellectual property rights and the enforcement of laws in general.

9 Article 42 Fair and Equitable Procedures “Members shall make available to right holders11 civil judicial procedures concerning the enforcement of any intellectual property right covered by this Agreement. Defendants shall have the right to written notice which is timely and contains sufficient detail， including the basis of the claims. Parties shall be allowed to be represented by independent legal counsel， and procedures shall not impose overly burdensome requirements concerning mandatory personal appearances. All parties to such procedures shall be duly entitled to substantiate their claims and to present all relevant evidence. The procedure shall provide a means to identify and protect confidential information， unless this would be contrary to existing constitutional requirements.”

分證據支持其主張，且指明相關重要證據為對造所持有時，司法機關

10 Article 43 Evidence of Proof 1. The judicial authorities shall have the authority， where a party has presented reasonably available evidence sufficient to support its claims and has specified evidence relevant to substantiation of its claims which lies in the control of the opposing party， to order that this evidence be produced by the opposing party， subject in appropriate cases to conditions which ensure the protection of confidential information. 2. In cases in which a party to a proceeding voluntarily and without good reason refuses access to， or otherwise does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period， or significantly impedes a procedure relating to an enforcement action， a Member may accord judicial authorities the authority to make preliminary and final determinations， affirmative or negative，

on the basis of the information presented to them， including the complaint or the allegation presented by the party adversely affected by the denial of access to information， subject to providing the parties an opportunity to be heard on the allegations or evidence.

11 Article 44 Injunctions 1. The judicial authorities shall have the authority to order a party to desist from an infringement， inter alia to prevent the entry into the channels of commerce in their jurisdiction of imported goods that involve the infringement of an intellectual property right，

immediately after customs clearance of such goods. Members are not obliged to accord such authority in respect of protected subject matter acquired or ordered by a person prior to knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that dealing in such subject matter would entail the infringement of an intellectual property right. 2. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Part and provided that the provisions of Part II specifically addressing use by governments， or by third parties authorized by a government， without the authorization of the right holder are

關對於明知，或可得而知之情況下，侵害他人智慧財產權之行為人，

12；三、TRIPS第 46 條「其他救濟」為有效遏阻侵害情事，司法機關 對於經其認定為侵害智慧財產權之物品，應有權，在無任何形式之補

complied with， Members may limit the remedies available against such use to payment of remuneration in accordance with sub-paragraph (h) of Article 31 above. In other cases， the remedies under this Part shall apply or， where these remedies are inconsistent with national law，

declaratory judgments and adequate compensation shall be available.

12 Article 45 Damages 1. The judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the infringer to pay the right holder damages adequate to compensate for the injury the right holder has suffered because of an infringement of his intellectual property right by an infringer who knew or had reasonable grounds to know that he was engaged in infringing activity. 2. The judicial authorities shall also have the authority to order the infringer to pay the right holder expenses， which may include appropriate attorney's fees. In appropriate cases， Members may authorize the judicial authorities to order recovery of profits and/or payment of pre- established damages even where the infringer did not know or had no reasonable grounds to know that he was engaged in infringing activity.

13 Article 46 Other Remedies In order to create an effective deterrent to infringement， the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order that goods that they have found to be infringing be， without compensation of any sort， disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to avoid any harm caused to the right holder， or， unless this would be contrary to existing constitutional requirements， destroyed. The judicial authorities shall also have the authority to order that materials and implements the predominant use of which has been

13 Article 46 Other Remedies In order to create an effective deterrent to infringement， the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order that goods that they have found to be infringing be， without compensation of any sort， disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to avoid any harm caused to the right holder， or， unless this would be contrary to existing constitutional requirements， destroyed. The judicial authorities shall also have the authority to order that materials and implements the predominant use of which has been