1952 年美國專利法第 271 條之修正－專利權濫用與幫助侵權之界線

第一項 1952 年專利法第 271 條之修正

鑑於 Mercoid 案對於專利權濫用理論適用之擴張而限縮了專利 幫助侵權的適用，美國國會於 1952 年增訂專利法第 271 條(b)、(c)、

(d)，其中第 271 條(d)即係為調和專利權濫用理論與專利幫助侵權理 論二者，一方面藉由明文規定使幫助侵權理論得以在實務上有效運 作，另一方面藉由例外規定之列舉，明定專利權濫用與幫助侵權之 界線⁷⁰。

1952 年修訂專利法第 271 條(c)明定：「銷售屬方法專利重要部分 之機器構作、製品、組合物或化合物，或實施方法專利所使用之材 料或裝置，且明知該項物品係特別製作或特別適合於侵害項專利 權，且該項物品非屬可供實質非侵害用途使用之適業通用物品者，

應負幫助侵權責任⁷¹。」

69320 U.S. 661, at 669 (The result of this decision, together with those which have preceded it, is to limit substantially the doctrine of contributory infringement. What residuum may be left we need not stop to consider.

It is sufficient to say that, in whatever posture the issue may be tendered, courts of equity will withhold relief where the patentee and those claiming under him are using the patent privilege contrary to the public interest.)

70 Hovenkamp, et al., supra note 32, at 3-17. 楊宏暉，前揭註 41，頁 110-111。

71 U.S.C. §271(c) of 1952 “Whoever sells a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or

21

composition, or material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing that same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringement use, shall be liable as a contributory infringement.”

72 U.S.C. §271(d) of 1952: “No patent owner otherwise entitled to relief for infringement or contributory infringement of a patent shall be denied relief or deemed guilty of misuse or illegal extension of the patent rights by reason of his having done one or more of the following: (1) derived revenue from acts which if performed by another without his consent would constitute contributory infringement of the patent; (2) licensed or authorized another to perform acts which if performed without his consent would constitute contributory infringement of the patent; (3) sought to enforce his patent rights against infringement or contributory infringement.”

73 Hovenkamp, et al., supra note 32, at 3-17.

74 Dawson Chemical v. Rohm & Hass, 448 U.S. 176 (1980).

22 propanil 之廠商，但被告未獲 Rohm & Hass 授權使用該方法專利，因 此，向被告購買 propanil 而使用之人，即構成侵害 Rohm & Hass 該 方法專利，Rohm & Hass 對被告提貣幫助侵權之訴訟，被告則提出 專利權濫用之抗辯，因為 Rohm & Hass 只授權予向其購買 propanil 之人係屬搭售行為。

75 Rohm & Hass Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., 191 U.S.P.Q 691, 707 (1976); Rohm & Hass Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., 599 F.2d 685, 704 (1979); 楊宏暉，前揭註 41，頁 113。

76 448 U.S. 176 (1980), at 200-201. (The critical inquiry in this case is how the enactment of § 271 affected the

23 做為條件而導致限制競爭之搭售行為，但在 1917 年 Motion Picture 案（該案中專利權人涉及搭售非專利品），聯邦最高法院並未適用克

doctrines of contributory infringement and patent misuse. Viewed against the backdrop of judicial precedent, we believe that the language and structure of the statute lend significant support to Rohm & Haas' contention that, because § 271(d) immunizes its conduct from the charge of patent misuse, it should not be barred from seeking relief. The approach that Congress took toward the codification of contributory infringement and patent misuse reveals a compromise between those two doctrines and their competing policies that permits patentees to exercise control over non-staple articles used in their inventions.

Section 271(c) identifies the basic dividing line between contributory infringement and patent misuse. It adopts a restrictive definition of contributory infringement that distinguishes between staple and nonstaple articles of commerce. It also defines the class on nonstaple items narrowly. In essence, this provision places materials like the dry ice of the Carbice case outside the scope of the contributory infringement doctrine. As a result, it is no longer necessary to resort to the doctrine of patent misuse in order to deny patentees control over staple goods used in their inventions.

The limitations on contributory infringement written into § 271(c) are counterbalanced by limitations on patent misuse in § 271(d). Three species of conduct by patentees are expressly excluded from characterization as misuse.)