第三章 美國就智慧財產權損害賠償之法制與實務
第一節 專利法部分
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
第三章 美國就智慧財產權損害賠償之法制與實務
第一節 專利法部分
第一項 立法沿革
美國專利制度的淵源甚早，早在殖民時期，即有發明人就製鹽流程取得排他 使用之權利39，雖然當時美國並沒有專利法之成文法，然發明人就自己之發明可 以取得排他權利之商業觀念即已深植。於十八世紀末期，某些州開始就專利申請 流程及條件等事項明文立法加以規範。嗣因專利權人跨州實施專利的情形愈趨頻 繁，對於全國有統一之專利法需求日益提升。1787年通過之美國憲法第1條第8 項即規定：「國會應…藉由賦予作者及發明人就其著作及發明享有排他的權利，
促進科學發展及實用工藝40。」
嗣於1790年，通過第一部關於專利的聯邦法「促進實用工藝發展法案」 (An Act to Promote the Progress of Useful Arts，亦稱Patent Act of 1790) 41，其主要內 容包括：專利權人就其發明享有14年之排他權利，且不得展期；外國人則不得在 美國取得專利；若侵害他人之專利權，應賠償陪審團所估定之損害賠償額，侵權 之物亦應沒收等42。而1793年通過之法案 (Patent Act of 1793) 除簡化申請專利之
39 Samuel Winslow 是美國專利史上第一位專利權人，他在 1641 年在麻塞諸塞州就製鹽流程取得 了十年的排他使用權。詳參 Manufactures of the United States in 1860; compiled from the original returns of the eighth census, under the direction of the Secretary of the interior. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1865. p. cxcix，及
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_patent_law ( 最後點閱日:2013 年 7 月 26 日。)
40 此為 1787 年 9 月 17 日施行之美國憲法 Article 1 section 之規定，原文為: “The Congress shall have Power…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
41 詳細條文內容請參
http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/lipa/patents/Patent_Act_of_1790.pdf ( 最後點閱日期:2013 年 7 月 9 日。)
42 原文請參 Patent Act of 1790, Section 4: “..if any person or persons shall devise, make, construct, use, employ, or vend within these United States, any art, manufacture, engine, machine or device, or any invention or improvement upon, or in any art, manufacture, engine, machine or device, the sole
‧
and exclusive right of which shall be so as aforesaid granted by patent …without the consent of the patentee… shall forfeit and pay to the said patentee… such damages as shall be assessed by a jury, and moreover shall forfeit to the person aggrieved, the thing or things so devised…”
43 原文請參 Patent Act of 1793,Section 5: “That if any person shall make, devise and use, or sell the thing so invented, the exclusive right…without the consent of the patentee… shall forfeit and pay to the patentee, a sum, that shall be at least equal to three times the price, for which the patentee has usually sold or licensed to other persons, the use of the said invention; which may be recovered in an action on the case founded on this act...”
44 Patent Act of 1836, Section 14: “That whenever, in any action for damages for making, using, or selling the thing whereof the exclusive right is secured by any patent heretofore granted… , a verdict shall be rendered for the plaintiff in such action, it shall be in the power of the court to render judgment for any sum above the amount found by such verdict as the actual damages sustained by the plaintiff, not exceeding three times the amount thereof…”
45 同上註，Section 17: “ …courts shall have power…to grant injunctions, according to the course and principles of courts of equity, to prevent the violation of the rights of any inventor as secured to him by any law of the United States, on such terms and conditions as said courts may deem reasonable…”
46 Patent Act of 1870, Section 55: ”…in any such case for an infringement, the claimant [complainant]
shall be entitled to recover, in addition to the profits to be accounted for by the defendant, the damages the complainant has sustained thereby, and the court shall assess the same or cause the same to be assessed under its direction…”
47 Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U.S.64, 69 (U.S. 1876) (underline added) : “… Damages of a compensatory character may also be allowed to the complainant suing in equity, in certain cases, where the gains
‧
reasonable royalty.49) ；同時也刪除了以侵權人所獲利益來計算損害賠償數額之規 定，解決了依據衡平或依據法律來計算損害賠償額度時產生之衝突情形50。本次 修法也嘗試確立了專利權人「得以請求回復的基礎是任何專利權人可證明之損失，
and profits made by the respondent are clearly not sufficient to compensate the complainant for the injury sustained by the unlawful violation of the exclusive right secured to him by the patent. Gains and profits are still the proper measure of damages in equity suits, except in cases where the injury sustained by the infringement is plainly greater than the aggregate of what was made by the respondent, in which event the provision is that the complainant ‘shall be entitled to recover, in addition to the profits to be accounted for by the respondent, the damages he has sustained thereby."
48 Coupe v. Royer, 155 U.S. 565, 582 (U.S. 1895) (underline added) : “…There is a difference between the measure of recovery in equity and that applicable in an action at law. In equity, the complainant is entitled to recover such gains and profits as have been made by the infringer from the unlawful use of the invention, and since the Act of July 8, 1870, in cases where the injury sustained by the infringement is plainly greater than the aggregate of what was made by the defendant, the complainant is entitled to recover the damages he has sustained in addition to the profits received. At law, the plaintiff is entitled to recover as damages compensation for the pecuniary loss he has suffered from the infringement, without regard to the question whether the defendant has gained or lost by his unlawful acts, the measure of recovery in such cases being not what the defendant has gained, but what plaintiff has lost.”
49 Patent Act of 1946, ch. 726.
50 Erick S. Lee, Historical Perspectives on Reasonable Royalty Patent Damages and Current Congressional Efforts for Reform, UCLA Journal of Law & Technology, Volume 13, Issue 2, (2009) .
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
而不低於合理權利金」 ( to make the basis of recovery in patent infringement suits general damages, that is, any damages the complainant can prove not less than a reasonable royalty.51) 。
1952 年修正的專利法經整合至美國法典第 35 章後，成為現今美國專利法的 基礎，其中損害賠償規定於第 284 條52：「依據有利於原告之證據，法院應就原 告因其專利受侵害給予足夠賠償之判決，其數目不得低於侵權人實施發明所需之 合理權利金，以及法院核定之利息及訴訟費用之總和…陪審團如未能決定損害賠 償額，法院即應估定之。上述任一情形，法院均得將決定或估定之總額增加至 3 倍。」該段條文內容與現行第 284 條之前兩段文字實無二致。
現行美國專利法第同法第 284 條53規定：
「當法院認定被告確有侵害原告專利時，應准許原告請求足以彌補其損失 的賠償金額 (adequate to compensate the infringement)，但不得低於被告使用 該專利應支付之合理權利金，以及利息及法院認定之訴訟費用之總和。
若陪審團未能決定賠償額度，法院應自行估算；在任一情形下，法院均 得提高賠償額至三倍。依本項增加之賠償額，不適用本法第 154 (d) 之規定。
法院得參考專家證詞，以決定在該案各種情狀下，賠償金或權利金之合 理數額。」
51 42 H.R.REP.NO. 79-1587, at 1-2 (1946) ; S.REP.NO. 79-1503, at 2 (1946) , reprinted in 1946 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1387。
52 Act of July 19, 1952, ch. 950, § 284, 66 Stat. 792, 813 ; 35 U.S.C. §284 (2006) : “Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court. When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.”
53 35 U.S.C. § 284 - Damages : “ Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court. When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154 (d) The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances.”
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
美國專利法第同法第 285 條54規定：
「法院在例外情形下，得准許勝訴方就合理律師費用之請求。」
由第 284 條規定可知，法院就損害賠償額之計算，可選擇以足供彌補原告損 失的賠償金額，或是合理權利金，做為計算標準。就彌補原告損失部分，從 1946 年專利法刪除了以侵權人所獲利益來計算損害賠償數額之規定，而保留專利權人 請求回復至少合理權利金之規定觀之，回復數額的計算基礎是任何原告可證明的 損失，最低不少於合理權利金，及自侵害發生時起之利息及訴訟費用55。從而，
美國專利法就損害賠償數額之計算，即係以「原告損失之利潤」(lost profit) 及「合 理權利金」(reasonable royalty) 此兩種型式為主軸56，法院實務亦發展出計量兩 者之原則及方法 (詳見下項)。又第 284 條第 2 款法院得以就賠償數額提高至三 倍的規定，一般多認為具有懲罰之意味，因此亦有認為該項係懲罰性損害賠償
57。
第二項 實務運作
現行美國專利法第 284 條係以原告損失之利益與合理權利金為計算損害賠 償之主要模式，然原告損失之利益應如何認定、權利金應如何計算始為合理，專 利法並未規範相關標準，而是由法院實務之判決累積將條文內容加以具體化。
54 35 U.S.C. § 285 - Attorney fees : “ The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.”
55 See General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corporation, 461 U.S. 648 (1983) (“Both the background and language of § 284 provide evidence of this fundamental purpose. Under the pre-1946 statute, the owner of a patent could recover both his own damages and the infringer's profits. ..A patent owner's ability to recover the infringer's profits reflected the notion that he should be able to force the infringer to disgorge the fruits of the infringement even if it caused him no injury. In 1946 Congress excluded consideration of the infringer's gain by eliminating the recovery of his profits,…, the determination of which had often required protracted litigation... Accordingly, Congress expressly provided in § 284 that the court "shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement."
56 參李柏靜，論專利侵害之損害賠償計算─從美國、中國大陸與台灣之專利修法談起，政治大學
法律科際整合研究所碩士論文，2009 年，頁 25。
57 參陳怡妃，台灣及美國專利侵害損害賠償與立法效力之探討，交通大學科技法律研究所碩士
論文，2006 年，頁 23。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
侵害行為可能造成專利權人利潤減損之情形，可分為下列數種58：
1. 轉向銷售59─為最明顯之減損，侵權人可能瓜分了權利人原本之銷售量。
2. 價格侵蝕─權利人可能因侵權者之參與競爭而被迫降價或放棄漲價，致其 持續銷售之商品利潤降低。
3. 增加成本─侵害行為可能使權利人之成本增加，諸如增加廣告成本及行銷 花費等。
4. 其他損害─法院對權利人主張之其他損害 (other asserted harms)，例如未來 獲利的損失 (lost future profits)、權利人因為侵權產品低劣品質導致之名 譽損害、侵權人在專利期滿時可加速進入市場等，偶爾亦會予以准許。然 而此類損害經常可能被認為已包含其他項目內，或因果關係過遠或出於臆 測而未獲賠判。
5. 其他產品之銷售損失─若專利權人之專利商品與非專利品一併銷售，或該 非專利商品與侵權人之商品處於競爭狀態時，專利權人亦可能就該非專利 商品之銷售損失請求賠償。此時法院即可能以整體市場法則 (entire market value) 來審酌是否應允許。
第一款 所失利潤 (lost profit)
60為了回復損失之利益，專利權人必須證明一個合理可能性，亦即「若非」(but for) 因為侵害行為，專利權人本來可以賺得侵權人所獲之利益61。只要權利人能
58 Roger Blair and Thomas Cotter, Intellectual Property: Economic and Legal Dimensions fo Rights and Remedies, 2005, P212。
59 學者有稱此為「被瓜分之銷售」，參范建得，智慧財產權鑑價在損害賠償案件中之運用，台
北大學法學叢刊 52 期，2003 年，頁 203。
60 亦有將 lost profit 譯為所失利益者，然為免與我國民法第 216 條規定之「所失利益」混淆，本 文乃譯為所失利潤。
61 Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley, 56 F.3rd 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (…we have held that the general rule for determining actual damages to a patentee that is itself producing the patented item is to determine the sales and profits lost to the patentee because of infringement. ... To recover lost profits damages, the patentee must show a reasonable probability that, "but for" the infringement, it would
61 Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley, 56 F.3rd 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (…we have held that the general rule for determining actual damages to a patentee that is itself producing the patented item is to determine the sales and profits lost to the patentee because of infringement. ... To recover lost profits damages, the patentee must show a reasonable probability that, "but for" the infringement, it would