第三章 美國專利權濫用理論之貣源與發展
第二節 專利權濫用理論之發展歷史
34 4 D. CHISUM, PATENT §19.04[4] (1990), in Jere M. Webb & Lawrence A. Locke, Intellectual Property Misuse: Developments in the Misuse Doctrine, 4 Harv. J.L.&Tech. 257 (1991), at 258; see, e.g. United States Gypsum, 352 U.S. at 465.
35 C. Feldman, The Insufficiency of Antitrust Analysis for Patent Misuse, 55 HASTINGS LJ 399 (2003) at 404.
即便是在被認為是專利權濫用原則先驅之 Motion Picture Patent Co. v. Universal Film Co.乙案中，大法官 Holmes 所提出之不同意見亦表達了類似的觀念。See 243 U.S. 502 (1917), at 519-520 (Holmes, J., dissenting);
Hovenkamp, et al., supra note 3, at 3-4. (By contrast, Justice Holmes, in dissent, was of the view that since the patentee had the unquestioned right to refuse to license its patent at all, it should also be permitted to impose whatever conditions s it desired on the license.)
36 陳家駿，前揭註 30，頁 17。
37 Strait v. National Narrow, 51 F. 819 (N.D.N.Y. 1892).
38 Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 F. 288 (6th Cir. 1896). 在本案中專利權 人享有固定鞋子鈕釦的機器專利權，專利權人授權他人使用其機器，但限制他人對使用於該機器上的非 專利品應向專利權人購買。被告為販賣此項非專利保障產品之人，專利權人對之提起訴訟主張被告幫助 侵害專利權，被告則以該項限制違反公共利益應屬無效為抗辯，法院認為該項限制並未違反公共利益，
且專利權人對該非專利保障產品可以享有獨占之權利；陳雅娟，前揭註，頁 38。
39 Martin J. Adelman, et.al, supra note 8, at 1074.
13 為人(joint tort-feasors)之理論，認為被告構成侵害原告之專利權43。 自 1871 年法院發展出專利幫助侵權理論後，在專利訴訟中即廣
40 Id. Also see, T. Williams, Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.: The Intersection of Patent Law and Antitrust Law in the Context of Patent Tying Arrangements, 58 Mercer L. Rev. 1035, (Spring 2007) at 1041. (The patent misuse doctrine was created in response to a line of cases that had expanded patent owner rights in the context of contributory infringement, such as Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co.
and Henry v. A.B. Dick Co.)
14
1912 年 Henry v. A.B. Dick Co.45乙案即是在前述疑慮背景下之案 件，該案中專利權人(A.B. Dick Co.)實施其專利而產銷一種油印機，
並將油印機銷售予其客戶，專利權人並要求客戶使用該油印機所需 之油印模版紙、油墨及其他相關耗材，均應向專利權人購買，而被 告(Henry)則是販售該油印機使用之油墨商人，其出售油墨予專利權 人之客戶使用於專利權人出售之油印機上，專利權人遂主張被告侵 害其專利權。本案中聯邦最高法院以四票對三票評議結論，認為客 戶違反了油墨來源使用限制之條款，構成了直接侵權，而被告明知 其供應之油墨將使用於專利權人之機器上，也能預見客戶之使用行 為，故被告供應客戶油墨之行為則成立幫助侵權。
然而最高法院在本案中之見解並未獲得一致性之支持，大法官 White 在本案中提出不同意見，認為油墨既不在專利權之申請專利 範圍內，專利權人即未有資格尌該部分主張權利，而且當初專利權 人提出專利案時，專利主管機關基於申請專利範圍所作之審查，決 定了專利私權利範及公眾領域(public domain)的界限，在申請專利 範圍內屬私權，在範圍外則屬公眾領域，應為私權所不及，此際若 再肯認專利權人得越過申請專利範圍之界線而進入公眾領域主張 權利，無異動搖整個專利制度46。
Henry v. A.B. Dick Co.之見解似乎過度擴大了專利權人行使權利 之範圍，藉由幫助侵權理論，專利權人甚至得將權利範圍延伸至申 請專利範圍所不及之元件上，幫助侵權理論發展至此，聯邦最高法 院顯有必要進一步思考應如何適當地劃定幫助侵權的界線，以為公 益與私益的衡帄47。
45 Henry v. A.B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1 (1912)
46 Id. at 69-70 (White, C.J. dissenting). 另參張哲倫，「專利濫用、幫助侵權與競爭法－專利濫用理論之過去 與未來」，全國律師，第 12 卷第 10 期，2008 年 10 月，頁 72。
47 張哲倫，同前註。
15
第三項 專利濫用理論架構之成形－Motion Picture 案
White 大法官在 Henry v. A.B. Dick Co.案之不同意見終究產生了 影響力，美國國會於 1914 年通過了克萊登法(The Clayton Act)，其中 第 3 條即明文規定搭售之約定，如造成限制競爭之結果即屬違法。
論者有謂美國國會通過克萊登法第 3 條之主要目的乃在於推翻美國 聯邦最高法院在 Henry v. A.B. Dick Co.中之見解48。
在 1917 年 Motion Picture Patent Co. v. Universal Film Co.49案 中，美國聯邦最高法院改變(overruled)了 Henry v. A.B. Dick Co.案中之 見解，在本案中，專利權人享有關於電影放映機之專利及關於電影
49 Motion Picture Patent Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917).
50 Id. at 510-511. (1st. The scope of every patent is limited to the invention described in the claims contained in it, read in the light of the specification….2nd. It has long been settled that the patentee receives nothing from the law which he did not have before, and that the only effect of his patent is to restrain others from manufacturing, using, or selling that which he has invented. The patent law simply protects him in the monopoly of that which he has invented and has described in the claims of his patent. ….3rd. Since Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, was decided in this Court has consistently held that the primary purpose of our patent laws is not the creation of private fortunes for the owners of patents, but is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts"
(Constitution, Art. I, § 8)….)
16
隨後在 Carbice Corp. of America v. American Patents Development
Corp.
53乙案中，原告係某一關於冰箱裝置設計專利之專屬被授權人，但原告並不直接從事該專利冰箱之製造，原告在其販賣之冰箱 上附有告示，要求向其購買冰箱之客戶只能使用該專利權人製造之 乾冰，但乾冰並非專利權範圍所及，專利權人發現被告提供乾冰予 其客戶後，控告被告幫助侵權。聯邦最高法院引用 Motion Picture 案 之見解，專利權人行使權利應依專利法之規定，專利權人對於非專
51 Id. at 517-518.( It is obvious that the conclusions arrived at in this opinion are such that the decision in Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., supra, must be regarded as overruled. ...Such a restriction is invalid because such a film is obviously not any part of the invention of the patent in suit, because it is an attempt, without statutory warrant, to continue the patent monopoly in this particular character of film after it has expired, and because to enforce it would be to create a monopoly in the manufacture and use of moving picture films wholly outside of the patent in suit and of the patent law as we have interpreted it.)
52 陳家駿，前揭註 30，頁 17；Feldman, supra note 35, at 407.
53 Carbice Corp. of American v. America Patents Development Corp., 283 U.S. 27 (1931).
54 Leitch Mnaufacture Co. v. Barber Co., 302 U.S. (1938).
17
57 314 U.S., at 493.( Equity may rightly withhold its assistance from such a use of the patent by declining to entertain a suit for infringement, and should do so at least until it is made to appear that the improper practice has been abandoned and that the consequences of the misuse of the patent have been dissipated.)
58 Id., at 494. (It is unnecessary to decide whether respondent has violated the Clayton Act, for we conclude that, in any event, the maintenance of the present suit to restrain petitioner's manufacture or sale of the alleged infringing machines is contrary to public policy, and that the district court rightly dismissed the complaint for
18
「Mercoid I」)及 Mercoid Corp. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regular
Co.,
64 (簡稱「Mercoid II」)被認為是專利權濫用理論發展之頂點，美 國聯邦最高法院再度確認了專利權濫用理論在專利侵權訴訟中之適 用。在 Mercoid I 案中 Mid-Continent 擁有家庭暖氣系統之專利並授 權予 Minneapolis-Honeywell 公司使用、製造及販賣暖氣系統，該暖 氣系統包括了一個煤氣開關，Mid-Continent 要求暖氣系統之購買者 必頇向其或其授權之人購買煤氣開關，雖然該開關並不為專利權範want of equity.)
59 Feldman, supra note 35, at 409.
60 許忠信，「智慧財產權之濫用與限制競爭防止法之適用－由美國法與日本法看我國公平交易法第四十五
條」，全國律師，第 12 卷第 10 期，2008 年 10 月，頁 9。
61 314 U.S., at 492 (The grant to the inventor of the special privilege of a patent monopoly carries out a public policy adopted by the Constitution and laws of the United States, ... But the public policy which includes inventions within the granted monopoly excludes from it all that is not embraced in the invention. It equally forbids the use of the patent to secure an exclusive right or limited monopoly not granted by the Patent Office and which it is contrary to public policy to grant. ...It is a principle of general application that courts, and especially courts of equity, may appropriately withhold their aid where the plaintiff is using the right asserted contrary to the public interest.)
62 張哲倫，前揭註 46，頁 74。
63 Mercoid Corp v. Mid-Continent Investment Co, 320 U.S. 661 (1944).
64 Mercoid Corp. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regular Co., 320 U.S. 680 (1944).
19
65 320 U.S. 661, at 664 (The grant of a patent is the grant of a special privilege "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." It carries, of course, a right to be free from competition in the practice of the invention.
But the limits of the patent are narrowly and strictly confined to the precise terms of the grant. It is the public interest which is dominant in the patent system)
66 Id. at 667. (..If the restraint is lawful because of the patent, the patent will have been expanded by contract.
That on which no patent could be obtained would be as effectively protected as if a patent had been issued.
Private business would function as its own patent office, and impose its own law upon its licensees. It would obtain by contract what letters patent alone may grant..)
67 Id. at 668. (..it would not be a monopoly accorded inventive genius by the patent laws, but a monopoly born of a commercial desire to avoid the rigors of competition fostered by the antitrust laws. If such an expansion of the patent monopoly could be effected by contract, the integrity of the patent system would be seriously
compromised.)
68 320 U.S. 680, at 684. (The legality of any attempt to bring unpatented goods within the protection of the patent is measured by the antitrust laws, not by the patent law. For the reasons stated in Mercoid v.
Mid-Continent Investment Co., supra, the effort here made to control competition in this unpatented device plainly violates the antitrust laws, even apart from the price-fixing provisions of the license agreements.)；張哲 倫，前揭註 46，頁 76。
20
儘管在 Mercoid I 案中，專利權人主張該煤氣開關係該專利暖氣 系統之重要部分且別無其他用途，而法院也認知到本件判決將可能 限縮了專利幫助侵權理論之適用範圍，但評議結論（五票對四票）
仍然認為專利權人構成專利權濫用而拒絕予以救濟69。此項對於專利 權濫用理論之適用到達極致之意見，引發了許多討論，也埋下了後 來美國國會在 1952 年修正專利法以釐清專利權濫用理論及專利幫助 侵權理論二者界線之遠因。