本次大會共舉行四天，2015 年 9 月 27 日至 9 月 30 日。因學術主題分配之故，本人的文章發表被安 排於 9 月 29 日上午 11 時 30 分到下午 12 點 45 分，Session VIII “Territoriality and Enforcement”。由德 國馬斯普郎克研究院 Professor Reto M. Hilty 主持，第一個報告者為英國 University of Surrey 的 Professor Alison Firth，發表題目是 “The Online Management of IP-Offensive and Defensive”；第二位報告者是德國 Goethe University 的 Alexander Peukert 教授，發表題目是 “Privatization and Automation of Rights Enforcement on the Internet”。
本人擔任第二位報告者，論文題目為“The future prospect of Indirect Infringement under patent law in the terms of international harmonization: Going through the Blockade of New Technologies and Territoriality”，
報告內容之論述意旨如下：述，電子商務交易與資料傳輸可能產生的複數主體與多方分工的情形，常使在 整個電子商務的模式運作下，縱然實質上未經專利權人同意，不法剝奪了專利價值與專利權人的經濟利益，
但因複數主體與多方分工之緣故，致使無人全然實施專利技術之所有要件，在專利法傳統所固守的全要件 原則下，形成無專利侵權之現象，專利權人對其所損失的經濟利益，無從由專利法下尋求適當的救濟。此 複數主體與多方分工下的窘狀亦可發生於未來物聯網模式(the net of things)的運作下。本報告就此議題對現 行專利法制提出反省，並特別審視現代科技之複數主體與多方分工特性下專利權之行使與救濟之請求。包 括：未來各國面臨此類議題，是否應全面揚棄全要件原則，或是對於全要件原則做出適度的調整？若要調 整全要件原則，應以何等之論理基礎為之？擴張直接侵權的解釋、強化間接侵權的獨立性或引入衡平概念 的調節等，皆為可以考慮之模式。另外，本計畫尚要以 3D 列印為例，探索傳統法定權的解釋與界定，當 科技發展已令專利侵權不法剝奪專利權人經濟利益之情形，提早於侵權物製造前即發生，各國專利法應如 何因應？尤其在專利法為此類情形特別修法前，由專利法保護創新與防堵不法剝奪專利價值的立法意旨與 法理，尋求適切的解決模式與方法，提供未來司法實務於相關議題的參考，實有其必要性。究竟要擴大解 釋排他權的範圍，藉以擴張直接侵權或間接侵權的主張，令專利權人有機會在專利侵權之前期，即有救濟 之機會，避免傳統法定排他權僵化解釋所生之不利益？或在現存法定排他權的解釋下，賦予衡平因素之考 量，予以調節法定排他權行駛之不充分？本報告雖僅提出相關問題的檢討，以及初步的可能解決模式，但 帶動主持人、報告人與在場學者的熱烈討論，並給予相當多的寶貴意見，本人實受益良多。
本文於此次「國際智慧財產教學研究精進學會」所舉辦的 34 屆年度會議與學術研討會所發表的內容，
目前尚在重新思考建構的階段，尚未完成文章，本人將於會後依與會學者的討論意見，調整研究果內 容，預定投稿至美國科技法律或智慧財產權法相關學術期刊，或德國 Max Planck Institute 所發行的 IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law，期待能順利投稿與刊登，以將研究成 果分享於國際間專利法的學術界。
本人於研討會進行期間，除發表論文的場次外，曾特別就專利更正與舉發法制相關的議題就教於參與 研討會的各國專利法學者。相關訪問的議題，包括：
(1)若專利更正生效，原專利之侵權訴訟仍在繼續進 行中，則專利侵權訴訟得否以專利更正之內容，作 為判斷或評價侵權之基準？
(2)再者，若專利更正生效，原專利侵權之損害賠償或相關救濟已確定，或已執行，則得否以專利更正 之內容為準，再給予當事人再救濟或回復原狀之機會？
(3)更複雜者，專利更正尚未終局，原專利侵權訴訟尚在進行中或損害賠償已確定與執行，此時，得否 以專利更正之內容列入前述侵權訴訟或再救濟之考量？
與會學者，就美國專利法與歐洲專利公約的相關規範與司法實務發展，提供相當多的觀察點與評論，
對本研究之進行與反饋，實有相當之增益。
三、 發表論文全文或摘要
The future prospect of Indirect Infringe under patent law in the terms of international harmonization: Going through the Blockade of New Technologies and Territoriality
Chung-Lun Shen
The exclusive rights of a patent are usually subject to the all-element rule under patent law. In other words, in terms of literal infringement, merely when someone practiced the complete content of a claim without the patentee’s authorization, its act constituted a patent infringement. If any element pertaining to a claim didn’t be materialized into the manufacture of a product or the use of a technology, the negative effect resulting from patent infringement is sure to keep from the practicing entity, unless the doctrine of equivalents could be applied to such this situation. Besides the function of public notice for a patent, the policy gist for the all-element rule mainly avoids the hindrance over the cumulative innovation that patent law is codified to promote, owing to the undue expansion of patent rights. However, the mechanic application of the all-element rule for the evaluation of patent infringement seems inevitable to produce a room for opportunists to escape from the legal risk of patent infringement by the manipulation of the territoriality or the arrangement of the manufacture processing about the end products. Further, the strict all-element rule actually can’t be well fitted into the current situation of modern high-technology industries so that it is difficult for patent law to provide the sufficient protection for the patentee. As a matter of fact, the risk of patent infringement would possibly be created if anyone induces other persons to practice the whole claim according to the contract or other objective circumstances, or aids them in a significant way under the evaluation of patent to fulfill the all elements of a claim. As a consequence, it has been among controversial issues under patent law whether the jurisprudence of indirect infringement should be admitted by or codified into patent law to resolve the predicaments resulting from the poor application of the all-element rule.
Chung-Lun Shen, Professor, College of Law, National Chengchi University in Taiwan; S.J.D., Maurer School of Law, Indiana University-Bloomington.
In order to rectify the inappropriate manipulation of the all-element rule for the sake of sufficient patent protection, this article presents a positive attitude over admittance of indirect infringement under patent law, and further proposes that a harmonized model for the related provisions of indirect infringement should be established at the level of international patent law. The following four aspects the article thinks should be considered when the aforesaid model is made:
First, the determination of indirect infringement would be based upon the interest balance between the relief the patentee enjoyed by mitigating the risk of patent infringement and the hardship suffered by the public on cumulative innovations. Such the consideration of interests mentioned above is expected to bind the development of the types of indirect infringement and the strength of remedies for indirect infringement.
Second, the article also addresses that the flexible approach is best applied in the determination of indirect infringement, rather than the stiff one. The article will offer the dramatic factors as a case-by-case model to assess if an indirect infringement is necessary to function as a supplement to secure the patentee’s interests, especially the cases involved in the complicated digital network or the issue of territoriality.
Furthermore, following the analysis of aforesaid conflicting interests, in terms of international harmonization, the article will define the representative types of indirect infringement, and reconstruct the elements to meet with the requirement of indirect infringement after reviewing the related development in legislation or case law under various jurisdictions. It should be explored if it is appropriate to take advantage of the concept of joint infringement originated from civil law as an alternative of indirect infringement in the countries under the continental legal system. Additionally, the article is expected to clarify the relationship between direct infringement and indirect infringement. Principally, the article tends to adopt the German approach focusing on the prevention of infringement risk by loosening the dependence of indirect infringement, except for in some special circumstance where the U.S. approach noting the connection of direct infringement with indirect one works well in the pursuit of patent law policy.
Finally, as soon as the indirect infringement was made, what confuses the judicial practice or case law much is how and to what extent the patentee could seek the remedy against the party conducting the indirect infringement. The concern about the remedies on the indirect infringement mainly comes from the possibility of double damages and whether the complete remedies under patent law should be granted to the patentee against indirect infringers. The article will thoroughly consider the risk of double damages and establish the remedy rule for indirect infringement in terms of international harmonization.
四、 建議
本次 ATRIP 所舉辦研討會無論在議題的安排方面，與講者的邀請方面，均頗為用心。幾乎將近年來 智慧財產權法於新興科技的議題統整分配於各場次的研討，涵及專利法、商標法與著作權法，透過此 次參與，本人不僅能掌握相關議題於國際或各國的發展，更能藉由討論，獲致不同角度的論點與觀察，
對於未來相關議題的深化研究，實有相當之裨益。未來本人將持續參與該組織所舉辦的智慧財權法研 討會，一方面能分享與交流己之研究成果，使之成熟，有機會貢獻給學術界與實務界；另一方面能與 各國學術機構的學者對某特定議題進行討論，有助於相關解決方案共識的達成。