行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 成果報告
專利文義侵害的認定—以美國法為借鏡探討「申請專利範
圍」的解釋
研究成果報告(精簡版)
計 畫 類 別 ： 個別型 計 畫 編 號 ： NSC 100-2410-H-004-192- 執 行 期 間 ： 100 年 08 月 01 日至 101 年 07 月 31 日 執 行 單 位 ： 國立政治大學法律學系 計 畫 主 持 人 ： 沈宗倫 計畫參與人員： 碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：何皓華 碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：潘玉蘭 報 告 附 件 ： 出席國際會議研究心得報告及發表論文 公 開 資 訊 ： 本計畫涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，1 年後可公開查詢中 華 民 國 101 年 10 月 29 日
中 文 摘 要 ： 由於專利文義侵害的認定涉及「申請專利範圍」的解釋問 題，向來為各國專利法所高度重視。關於「申請專利範圍」 的解釋，現今有三個重要議題，值得特別探討。首先，「申 請專利範圍」的解釋的證據來源爭議極待釐清。亦即究應以 專利的「內部證據」作為主要解釋來源，抑或以「外部證 據」為優先？關於此點，美國專利法判例法的發展值得我國 借鏡。再者，「申請專利範圍」與「專利說明書」的其他記 載間是否存在一定的解釋關係？尤其當「專利說明書」的其 他記載具有「申請專利範圍」所無的要件時，究竟應以「專 利說明書」的其他記載作為限定「申請專利範圍」解釋的證 據，或者直接忽略「專利說明書」的其他記載，而逕以「申 請專利範圍」為基準以解釋權利範圍？此議題乃與專利權利 範圍界定有關，本研究將由專利法理論與政策著手，探求專 利權利範圍的解釋方針。最後，本研究所關注的問題乃新興 科技對「申請專利範圍」解釋的影響？進一步而言，「申請 專利範圍」的解釋是否及於專利申請後的新興科技內容？若 為肯定的答案，其解釋範圍又應為何？本研究試圖從發明者 誘因的確保與累積創新的鼓勵二方面的利益衡量，探討此一 議題。 中文關鍵詞： 專利文義侵害、申請專利範圍、專利說明書、專利審查記 錄、先前技術、周邊界定主義、中心界定主義、內部證據、 外部證據、文義解釋派、體系解釋派。
英 文 摘 要 ： Patent literal infringement is determined by interpretation of claims. There are three issues around interpretation of claims. Firstly, it is necessary to clarify the evidentiary sources for interpretation of claims. In other words, while the court interprets patent claims for determination of literal infringement, the precondition for this interpretation is to inquiry whether the internal evidence or external one should primarily dominate interpretation of claims. This applicant believes that the development of U.S. patent case law on this issue has provided precious lesson for resolution of the same issue in Taiwanese patent law. Secondly, on interpretation of claims, it is also worth discussing the relationship between claims and specification. Especially, if the written description under
specification is narrower than claim＇s, it is
difference. It is not sure whether the specification should be used to be a limitation of the claim, or whether the specification should be ignored. We are prepared to proceed in this issue through the patent policy and jurisprudence to seek the guideline for claim interpretation. Finally, the issue of after-rising technologies is also our focus. This issue is reflected in whether claim interpretation should cover some after-rising technologies never happening at that time when the patent application was filed. We will be examining this issue form balance of
interests between assurance of inventors＇ motivation and encouragement of accumulated innovation.
英文關鍵詞： Literal Infringement, Claims, Specification,
Prosecution History, Prior Art, Peripheral Definition System, Central Definition System, External Evidence, Internal Evidence, Literalism, Contextualism
壹、前言 專利是一無體財產權，其存在與保護具有強烈的經濟政策意味，此政策之目 的乃藉由授予發明人一定程度的排他權，使其在合理範圍內回收研發成本及獲取 利潤，以確保未來繼續創新研發的誘因，促進產業的發達與進步。在此必須特別 強調的是，前述排他權的授予僅為立法者為貫徹立法的創新目標所特別創設的手 段，並非立法的終極意旨，是故排他權的解釋必須符合政策目標達成的必要性， 不得過度擴張解釋以致不當擠壓公眾利用公共資源以從事累積創新或再創新的 機會。此為「功利主義」(utilitarianism)下的專利概念，在現今國際專利法的發展 趨勢下，頗具說服力。 專利技術內容具體化或專利法下排他權的行使，實與「申請專利範圍」(claims) 有直接的關係。因此，當他人未經專利權人同意實施專利技術內容，即對於該專 利的「申請專利範圍」構成「文義侵害」(literal infringement)。然而，在專利實 務的發展上，「文義侵害」的認定未若理論的推演單純，侵害人不會全盤依專利 技術內容實施，常會針對己之需求或避免侵權追訴的危險，以類似的元件或用途 調整技術內容而實施，此時是否構成「文義侵害」，端賴「申請專利範圍」的解 釋以為確定。 關於專利文義侵害所涉及的「申請專利範圍」，具有爭議性者至少有三，其 一為「申請專利範圍」解釋的「證據來源」問題；其二為「申請專利範圍」與「專 利說明書」二者間對於權利範圍的解釋關係；其三為「申請專利範圍」解釋與新 興科技的問題。此三議題不僅為各國專利法的立法者所關注，亦常困擾各國專利 與司法實務，實值得研究。本研究即以比較法的角度，觀察與檢討美國專利法學 界與司法實務界對於相關議題的立場，尋就關於「申請專利範圍」最適的解釋方 針，以作為我國司法實務未來發展的參考依據。 貳、研究目的 專利文義侵害乃專利侵害中最基本型態，其侵害判斷一方面先於「均等論」 的適用，亦即在文義侵害不成就下，始有「均等侵害」的討論餘地。另一方面， 文義侵害的判斷不可避免地涉及「申請專利範圍」的解釋，此一解釋亦可作為「均 等論」的適用基礎。由此而知，專利文義侵害認定於產業實務或司法實務所扮演 的重要角色。由於專利文義侵害的正確認定有賴於「申請專利範圍」合理解釋， 而「申請專利範圍」本身雖以具體文字表達抽象發明，畢竟其中的技術內容與目 的不易為公眾所徹底知悉或確認，真正的發明訴求及範圍常有相當的解釋空間， 不利於權利公示。本研究的主要目的即在於釐清「申請專利範圍」的解釋依據與 方法，以利於文義侵害的認定。關於「申請專利範圍」的解釋依據與方法，本研
究規劃三個方向予以探討。首先，本研究要解決「申請專利範圍」解釋的「證據 來源」，確認「內部證據」或「外部證據」始為解釋的主要依據，並觀察是否有 其他折衷立場存在可資參考。再者，本研究預定解決「申請專利範圍」的解釋方 法問題，特別是「專利說明書」的記載於「申請專利範圍」解釋的定位，亦即探 究我國專利法第 56 條第 3 項所謂「於解釋申請專利範圍時，並得審酌發明說明 及圖式」的真正意涵。最後，「申請專利範圍」的解釋即為專利權利範圍的對外 宣示，在文義允許內，得否將專利申請後的新興科技，經由解釋置入權利範圍， 此為歐美各國專利法學者或司法實務所爭議者，本研究亦將此議題列入，希望在 專利權人與公眾二者的衝突利益找尋平衡點，為「申請專利範圍」的解釋建立一 界限，以作成合宜的文義侵害認定準則。 參、文獻探討 因為美國相關文獻眾多，以下僅列舉近年來英文學術期刊所登載的重要文獻： Biela, Joseph A., Claim Interpretation: A Claim Indefiniteness Analysis Proposal
47 IDEA 561 (2007).
Binney, David H. and Myricks, Toussaint L., Patent Claim Interpretation After
Markman - How Have the Trial Courts Adapted? 38 IDEA 155(1997).
Burk, Dan L. and Lemley, Mark A., Fence Posts or Sign Posts? Rethinking Patent
Claim Construction, 157U.PA.L.REV.1743 (2009).
Burk, Dan L., Lemley, Mark A., Quantum Patent Mechanics, 9 LEWIS &CLARK L. REV.29 (2005).
Collins, Kevin Emerson, Enabling After-Arising, 34 IOWA J.CORP.L. 1083 (2009). Collins, Kevin Emerson, The Reach of Literal Claim Scope into After-Arising
Technology: On Thing Construction and the Meaning of Meaning, 41 CONN.L. REV.493 (2008).
Cotropia, Christopher A., Patent Claim Interpretation Methodologies and their Claim
Scope Paradigms, 47 WM AND MARY L.REV. 49 (2005).
Fromer, Jeanne C., Claiming Intellectual Property, 76 U.CHI.L.REV. 719 (2009). Fromer, Jeanne C., Patent Dislosure, 94 IOWA L.REV.539 (2009).
Lemley, Mark A., The Changing Meaning of Patent Claim Terms, 104 MICH.L.REV. 101 (2005).
Lemley, Mark A., Quantum Patent Mechanics, 9 LEWIS &CLARK L.REV. 29 (2005) Lyman, Megan E., Judicial Fitness for Review of Complex Biotechnology Issues in
Patent Litigation: Technical Claim Interpretation, 23 J. NAALJ 503(2003).
Menell, Peter S. et al, Patent Claim Construction: A Modern Synthesis and Structured
Moore, Kimberly A., Markman Eight Years: Is Claim Construction more Predictable?, 9 LEWIS &CLARK L.REV.231 (2005).
Nard, Craig Allen, Process Considerations in the Age of Markman and Mantras 2001 U.ILL.L.REV. 355(2001).
Nard, Craig Allen, A Theory of Claim Interpretation, 14 HARV. J. LAW & TEC 2 (2000).
Silfen, Molly, Claim Interpretation Recommendations for the Federal Circuit Court of
Appeals in PHILLIPS V. AWH, 14 U.BALT.INTELL.PROP.L.J.47(2005). Wagner, R. Polk and Petherbridge, Lee, Did Phillips Change Anything? Empirical
Analysis of the Federal Circuit’s Claim Construction Jurisprudence in
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE COMMON LAW (S. Balganesh, ed. 2012). Wagner, R. Polk & Petherbridge, Lee, Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding? An
Empirical Assessment of Judicial Performance, 152 U.PA.L.REV. 1105 (2004). 肆、研究方法
請參見本研究計畫之申請書。本研究採用類似傳統社會科學研究方法的「非 介入研究」(non-intervention research)下的「內容分析法」(content analysis)、「歷 史研究分析法」(historical research analysis)以及「比較研究法 」(comparative research)。 伍、結果與討論 一、申請專利範圍解釋的證據來源 專利的文義侵害涉及申請專利範圍的解釋，專利法上向來值得討論者，乃申 請專利範圍解釋的依據，亦即究竟應以「內部證據」或「外部證據」為解釋的依 據？另外，申請專利範圍的解釋的客觀標準為何？評價主體為何？以何時為評價 的標準？究竟申請專利範圍為是事實問題或法律問題？最後，前述「內部證據」 與「外部證據」同時具備時，二者在申請專利範圍解釋的關係為何？ 我國專利法第 57 條第 4 項雖明文規範：「發明專利權範圍，以申請專利範圍 為準，於解釋申請專利範圍時，並得審酌說明書及圖式。」其中是否已表明，申 請專利範圍的解釋是以「內部證據」為準而排除了「外部證據」的參酌可能性？ 不無疑問。雖然我國司法實務於申請專利範圍的解釋上，是以「內部證據」為評 價的優先依據，然而，對於「內部證據」與「外部證據」二者間的互動關係，未 能有明確的說明。茲以美國專利法為範圍為借鏡，觀察「申請專利範圍」解釋於 美國專利法所引發「內部證據」與「外部證據」的爭議發展。其中富含專利法基 本原則的相關論理，特別是關於「專利權利公示」的部分，對於強化文義侵害判
斷的正當化基礎方面，特別值得我國司法實務界參考。 在「申請專利範圍」解釋的「證據來源」問題方面，以美國專利判例法的發 展為借鏡，可知向來有二種對立的見解存在於司法判決中，分別為「體系解釋派」 (contextualist)與「文義解釋派」(literalist)1。「體系解釋派」主張解釋「申請專利 範圍」時，應著重於專利的「內部證據」，所謂「內部證據」是指專利說明書、 審查記錄與先前技術，唯有「內部證據」無法釐清「申請專利範圍」的真義時， 方得以「外部證據」(字典、教科書及百科全書)為補充解釋。主要的理由乃尊重 發明人對其發明的詮釋，「外部證據」對於「申請專利範圍」的解釋，常為大眾 一般的認知，未必能切中發明人的本意，且甚至有扭曲發明真義的可能，故專利 的「內部證據」方為解釋「申請專利範圍」的最適工具。採此見解者，為西元 2002 年 於 美 國 聯 邦 巡 迴 上 訴 法 院 的 通 說 ， 代 表 案 例 為 Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)。
「文義解釋派」則傾向以「外部證據」為基準為「申請專利範圍」的解釋， 主要探求者為「申請專利範圍」的「通常且習慣」的文義。除非發明人於申請文 件已特別強調排除「通常且習慣」的文義，否則「內部證據」不能作為「申請專 利範圍」的解釋依據。其主要理由在於發明人對發明的認知隱誨難知，不利於公 眾對於專利的實施，基於權利「公示」的必要，採取「外部證據」較能符合公眾 的期待與交易安全的保障。代表案例為 Texas Digital Sys. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002)。
美國聯巡迴上訴法院鑑於「體系解釋派」與「文義解釋派」於司法判決的分 歧，而相互間的立場衝突匯集於西元 2004 年 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 363 F.3d 1207
(Fed. Cir. 2004) 一案，「判決書」(「體系解釋派」)與「不同意見書」(「文義解
釋派」)的見解南轅北轍，無共識的可能。聯巡迴上訴法院遂經聲請，撤銷原判 決，改以「全院法官聯席」的方式審理，以尋求共識。終於在 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc)中支持「體系解釋派」的立場，成為美國 專利法上關於「申請專利範圍」解釋的劃時代重要判決。該判決中亦特別確認「外 部證據」存在的重要性，以及其於「申請專利範圍」解釋時的援用界限。本報告 以下整理分析 Phillips v. AWH Corp.一案的發展，以及其中所建立的解釋原則與 相關的適用，希望能提供我國專利法司法實務於判斷專利文義侵害時的參考。
Phillips v. AWH Corp.一案，原告研發出可組合式的鋼製壁板，當壁板嵌合
時，除可「承重」外，尚有緩和「外力衝撞」的功能，通常可用於監獄內，防止
內部暴動，且兼具有隔音與防火的用途2。原告以此研發申請專利，並獲得專利
1
See JANICE M.MUELLER,PATENT LAW 399-443 (3d. ed. 2009).
2
的授予(以下簡稱「系爭專利」)。原告原將系爭專利授權予被告，從事專利物的 製造與銷售3。西元 1990 年前述授權契約期滿，然而，原告發現被告於授權契約 期滿，仍繼續使用系爭專利的技術(同時使用原告的營業秘密)，遂於聯邦地方法 院向被告提起專利與營業秘密的侵害訴訟4。因本報告的主題乃關於專利的文義 侵害，以下所解析的判決內容，是以專利侵害為中心，特此說明。 聯邦地方法院首先由系爭專利申請專利範圍的第一請求項所描述的技術特 徵，首先判斷系爭專利的標的是以「手段功能語言」(means-plus-function)語言所 形成的發明5。再由系爭專利的說明書與圖示觀之，聯邦地方法院認為，系爭專 利物 內部的 隔板 (baffle) 與 鋼製壁 板間的延 伸 角度可能 為銳角(acute) 或鈍角 (oblique) ， 但 非 直 角 (90 degree) ， 且 隔 板 形 成 鋼 製 壁 板 接 合 時 的 內 部 鎖 連 (interlocking barrier)6。由於原告未能證明被告的侵害物內涵於專利請求項的文義 解釋範圍，因此，准許被告就本身「不構成專利侵害」(non-infringment)的事由 所聲請的簡易判決(summary judgment)7。 原告就聯邦地方法院的判決，上訴至聯邦巡迴上訴法院。上訴法院的承審法 官於本案有分歧的見解。判決主文肯認聯邦地方法院的判決，駁回原告的上訴。 其理由與論理不同於地方法院的見解。上訴法院認為系爭專利關於專利物的結 構，申請專利範圍內有明確的記載，本質上非屬「手段功能語言」專利8。另外， 上訴法院參照系爭專利的專利說明書，發現說明書不止一次強調系爭專利物內部 的隔板具備偏移(deflect)彈道(projectile)之「防彈功能」，由此推之，欲達成偏移 彈道的目的，系爭專利物內部的隔板與鋼製壁板間的延伸角度，必不能為直角9。 再者，上訴法院以先前技術曾揭示內部隔板與外部壁板成直角的技術內容，以之 區別系爭專利，更能確知地方法院判決結果的正確10。本案上訴的不同意見書(the dissenting opinion)，則認為判決主文的解釋方法不當，似以實施例之記載限縮申 請專利範圍之解釋，而非探究專利物內部隔板的真義。主張以字典為本，作為解 釋前述「隔板」於系爭專利之意涵11。 由於本案的判決，於聯邦巡迴上訴法院內見解分歧，為求立場的一致計，聯 邦巡迴上訴法院遂裁定，以「全院聯席」(en banc)的方式「重新審理」(rehearing) 本案。 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Id. at 1310. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id.
本案在重新審理下，首先，聯邦巡迴上訴法院確認系爭專利並非美國專利法 第 112 條第 6 項所規範之「手段功能」專利12。再者，法院在解釋系爭專利相關 爭議前，重新建構「申請專利範圍」解釋(claim construction)的法理基礎，並確立 「解釋」的方針與法則。 關於前述法理基礎，聯邦巡迴上訴法院以「申請專利範圍」對公眾所呈現出 的權利公示機能，作為論述重心，強調公眾得由「申請專利範圍」的記載，瞭解 專利權人就其發明所得行使「排他權」的界限13。法院同時進一步說明，「申請 專利範圍」對於公眾的權利公示，乃建立於其「通常且慣常」的意義(ordinary and customary meaning)，且該意義是以該專利申請時，以「相關領域具有通常工藝 者」( a person of ordinary skill in the art)，作為法律虛擬主體，加以評價14。「申請
專利範圍」的解釋不僅應針對有爭議的請求項的特定意涵，更應顧及整體專利說
明書的記載，以尋求發明者賦予系爭專利下發明的真正意義15。
關於「申請專利範圍」解釋的方針與法則，聯邦巡迴上訴法院首先指出解釋 依據的來源，包括「申請專利範圍」的文字組成(the words of the claims)、專利說 明書的記載(the remainder of specification)、專利審查歷史(the prosecution history) 以及「外部證據」(extrinsic evidence)，包括相關的科技法則(relevant scientific principles)、技術名稱的意義(the meaning of technical terms)與相關的工藝發展狀 態(the state of the art)16。法院更進一步就各解釋上的證據來源，論析其於「申請
專利範圍」解釋的定位。 在「申請專利範圍」的文字組成與「申請專利範圍」解釋方面，聯邦巡迴上 訴法院舉出一例說明其間的關連。例如：本案系爭專利的申請專利範圍提及「鋼 製的隔板」，由該文字的安排可以推敲出「鋼製」的材料，並非「隔板」本質上 所必需17。另外，法院亦強調申請專利範圍中之一請求項關於特定用語的解釋方 向，足資作為另一請求項就相同用語的解釋參考18。再者，請求項關於文字組成 的差異，亦得作為特定請求項內用語的解釋方針19。最後，附屬請求項所增加之 額外具有限縮性質的文字組成，依被推定該用語不應出現該附屬項所依附的獨立 請求權項20。 12 Id. at 1311. 13 Id. at 1312. 14 Id. at 1312-13. 15 Id. at 1313. 16 Id. at 1314. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 Id. 20 Id. at 1315.
在專利說明書於申請專利範圍解釋所扮演的角色而言，聯邦巡迴上訴法院從 專利法的規範與判例法的發展二方面，說明「專利說明書」向來為解釋「申請專 利範圍」的最重要的來源之一21。「專利說明書」不僅為「申請專利範圍」界定 合理的解釋內容，更能探究發明者對於專利技術本身的真正期待與意涵，藉之與 該技術的一般意義作出區別22。有時，「專利說明書」的記載亦為發明者限縮專 利相關技術表面意涵的來源23。現行美國專利實務，關於「申請專利範圍」的解 釋，美國專利商標局乃會參照專利說明書的記載，以「所屬技術領域具有通常工 藝者」(法律所創設的虛擬專家)為標準，給予「申請專利範圍」的文字記載最廣 義的合理解釋(the broadest reasonable construction)24。
「專利審查歷史」亦為解釋「申請專利範圍」的重要來源，此如同於「專利 說明書」，為解釋申請專利範圍的內部證據來源。「專利審查歷史」包括專利審查 之一切必要程序的審查記錄，審查中所引用的先前技術亦在此類證據來源範圍 內。「專利審查歷史」其實為一動態的證據來源，主要是探究在審查期間，發明 人本身對於發明的期待，以及是否有給予相關發明較為限縮的認知25？然而，「專 利審查歷史」所呈現者乃專利申請者與專利審查機關間，就發明內容關於專利審 查所進行的一系列協商，協商的目的乃是利於審查的遂行，而非在確定「申請專 利範圍」的真正意義，因此，雙方並非實際立於協商的結果，對於專利說明書與 申請專利範圍間的關連，提出見解或立場。「專利審查歷史」常以事後判讀的方 式來解釋申請專利範圍，因此，有時不易發揮申請專利範圍解釋的證據功能26。 當聯邦巡迴上訴法院肯認「外部證據」亦得作為解釋「申請專利範圍」，同 時也指出「字典」、「教科書」(treatises)與「專家證詞」(expert testimony)乃於前 述「外部證據」之列27。但法院亦以五點理由論證，獨賴「外部證據」作為解釋 「申請專利範圍」的來源，實有其不周延之處，除非將之定位為輔助「內部證據」 解釋的工具。第一、「外部證據」為專利所揭露者之外的資訊工具，實無法期待 其與「專利說明書」等同發揮合理解釋申請專利範圍的功能28。第二、申請專利 範圍的解釋依專利法乃是藉由法律虛擬專家-「相關領域具有通常工藝者」-作為 解釋主體。然而，「外部證據」未必由具有前述工藝標準的專家所作成，其是否 得以合理反映「相關領域具有通常工藝者」對於申請專利範圍的理解，值得懷疑 29。第三、「外部證據」下的「專家證詞」出現於專利訟爭中，常流於主觀的偏 21 Id. 22 Id. at 1316. 23 Id. 24 Id 25 Id. at 1317. 26 Id. 27 Id. 28 Id. at 1318. 29 Id.
見30。第四、「外部證據」非產自於專利所揭露之資訊，因此只要與專利技術內 容相關者，似均可作為解釋申請專利範圍的「外部證據」。在眾多且無限制的外 部證據下，有可能不當增加法院在認定「外部證據」時，伴隨「篩選」合宜證據 的成本31。第五、專利是以「申請專利範圍」與「專利說明書」內所揭露的資訊， 作為向公眾宣示權利範圍的基礎。若過度倚重「外部證據」以解釋申請專利範圍， 則公眾無法直接由專利所揭露的資訊，正確判斷專利的權利範圍，實有礙專利本 身對外權利公示的功能32。 本案聯邦巡迴上訴法院於確立請專利範圍解釋的相關證據來源與定位後，接 著檢討判例法的發展。本案法院對於 Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc. 一案提出批評，鞏固其優先援用內部證據解釋申請專利範圍的立場。Texas Digital Systems 認為外部證據，例如：字典、百科全書與教科書等，具有客觀性，得以 優先作為解釋申請專利範圍「通常且慣常」意義的可靠來源。除非發明人利用專 利說明書或專利審查歷史等刻意以文字組成創造出有別於「通常且慣常」意義的 技術意涵，或對於「通常且慣常」意義加以限縮，外部證據乃立於解釋來源的優 位33。從另一個角度言之，內部證據的功能，僅在輔助外部證據以作成申請專利 範圍的解釋，特別是當由外部證據(例如：字典)得以獲得複數意義，內部證據則 有限縮複數意義至最適意義的效果。
本案法院認為 Texas Digital Systems 的立場，有四個重要的缺失。第一個缺 失反映在於，此立場偏離判例法向來所揭示以「專利說明書」詮釋申請專利範圍 的傳統法則34。字典所尋求的意義僅為對於特定技術用語的抽象回應，並無法顧 及前述用語在專利申請下整個發明體系的意涵。進而，在申請專利範圍的解釋方 面，僅著重字典編纂者的編輯目標，忽略了發明人對於原發明的瞭解與期待，影 響專利本身的權利公示機能35。第二個缺失則與專利說明書有關。發明人或專利 申請人在專利實務上常利用專利說明書的記載，合理限縮申請專利範圍的文字組 合或用語的文字表面意涵。若過度倚重字典於申請專利範圍解釋的證據地位，即 可能瓦解發明人原本利用專利說明書限縮發明內容的目的，而令申請專利範圍的 意義產生不當的擴張36。第三個缺失在於外部證據，特別是字典或教科書，因編 纂者的認知不同，就專利申請範圍內的特定用語，常令致有複數意義產生，無法 直接切合該用語於專利內的真正意涵37。第四個缺失則為 Texas Digital Systems 對
於內部證據的不當認知。Texas Digital Systems 一案的法院似認為，以外部證據為 30 Id. 31 Id. 32 Id. at 1319. 33 Id. at 1319-20. 34 Id. at 1321. 35 Id. at 1321. 36 Id. 37 Id. at 1321-22.
解釋申請專利範圍的主要來源，是為了避免造成「專利說明書」的要件(limitations) 不當「置入」(importing)「申請專利範圍」，過度限縮「申請專利範圍」合理的 解釋。然而，以內部證據作為主要來源解釋申請專利範圍，在專利判例法的發展 下，與避免「專利說明書」要件不當置入的原則，並不相互牴觸38。「不當置入」 的危險不當然得證「外部證據」為解釋「申請專利範圍」的最適來源。 最後，本案法院特別強調，肯認 Vitronics 一案的立場，「外部證據」來源雖 未較「內部證據」具有優位，但亦非無適用的餘地。只要不牴觸「內部證據」下 無疑義的解釋，「外部證據」仍可發揮其解釋上的角色39。 自案判決作成後，美國專利判例法關於申請專利範圍的解釋來源與其定位， 已獲大致底定。未來判決實務的發展預期將依本案的解釋法則為之。 二、申請專利範圍解釋與專利說明書的法律定位 關於專利說明書於申請專利範圍解釋的定位，若以「實施例」為觀察重點， 本研究觀察美國專利判例法與學術文獻，整理出以下的解釋架構，可供司法與專 利實務參考40： 第一、除非在專利審查中專利申請人提出不同的見解，或該實施例非與欲解釋的 特定請求項(claim)相關(屬於同一申請範圍的其他請求項)，原則上申請專利範圍 的解釋應包含實施例在內，不得刻意排除實施例而單就申請專利範圍加以解釋。 第二、法院必須嚴格區分實施例的定位。實施例的定位常有二種型態，一為「例 示」型的實施例，在此型態下，實施例僅為專利起草者以特定的例子向公眾宣示 發明的內容以及發明如何實施，不得以此實施例作為申請專利範圍實施唯一權利 界限，否則將會令「專利說明書」的要件不當「置入」「申請專利範圍」，過度限 縮「申請專利範圍」合理的解釋。另一為「列舉式」實施例，此型態下，專利起 草者的原意，在於創設「申請專利範圍」與「專利說明書」二者間的緊密「共存 關係」，亦即申請專利範圍之權利公示，是以「實施例」為限作為解釋依歸。 第三、若實施例定位為前述「例示型」，縱然專利說明書僅呈現一個實施例或實 施例記載較為簡要，並不當然限縮申請專利範圍的權利宣示。然而，就公眾的角 度而言，專利資訊充分且完整的記載，將有利於權利公示，增進專利制度的實質 貢獻。由此而言，法院在解釋申請專利範圍時，似應就單一實施例或記載內容較 38 Id. at 1323-24. 39 Id. at 1324. 40
See Peter S. Menell, Patent Claim Construction: A Modern Synthesis and Structured Framework, 25 BERKELEY TECH.L.J. 711, 745-50 (2010).
為簡要的實施例，給予較為保守的權利解釋立場。如此，為求申請專利範圍的合 理解釋，專利起草者於撰寫專利說明書時，特別是實施例的設計，便能充分與完 整揭露相關資訊。此解釋的構想現未必為司法實務的準則，但期待能對司法判決 的未來發展有所啟發。 三、文義侵害與新興科技 最後，專利文義侵害與新興科技間的問題，此涉及極為精細的利益衡量。若 專利文義侵害的認定，在申請專利範圍的解釋方面，完全以專利申請時點為基 準，固符合專利法的本旨，但當申請專利範圍的文字記載，依解釋方針與證據法 則，得以將申請專利日後新興科技內容的運用，納入文義侵害的認定範圍，此時， 是否有充分的正當化理由，排除新興科技的運用構成文義侵害的可能性？或者， 在何種程度下，得令專利權人得將新興科技的運用納入申請專利範圍的解釋，而 不致使專利權人獲致專利法規範外的超額利益，實值得特別研究。觀諸比較法的 學術文獻，有將專利物各特徵加以解構，區分構成此專利物必要的「本質」上的 特徵，以及非本質的「外在特徵」41。若侵害者利用新興科技作成的侵害物，較 之專利物，乃實施了系爭專利下專利物的本質特徵，此時，本質發生變異，則不 應使文義侵害範圍加以涵括，否則專利權人將獲致超額利益。反之，若侵害者僅 為「外在特徵」，則此侵害行為仍應解釋為文義侵害為當。另外，亦有專利物的 「意義」作為判斷新興科技是否列入文義侵害認定的考量42。然而，本研究認為 無論由專利物的「特徵」與「意義」，似無法直接切中專利法規範下的利益衡量， 最適的衡量模式目前仍在作最後的確認，未來將呈現於本研究成果的學術發表 上。本研究傾向類推「專利要件」的法理，衡量以新興科技實施申請專利範圍後， 產生的利益「質變」，作為決定是否構成文義侵害的關鍵因素。 41
See Kevin Emerson Collins, The Reach of Literal Claim Scope into After-Arising Technology: On Thing Construction and the Meaning of Meaning, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 493, 521-36 (2008).
42
1
國科會補助專題研究計畫項下出席國際學術會議心得報告
日期：2012 年 10 月 24 日
一、參加會議經過
本人有幸於今年(西元 2012 年)參與「亞洲法學會」(Asian Law Institute)於新加坡第九屆的學術研討 會。亞洲法學會成立於西元 2003 年，乃由亞洲各國的法學院所組成，在創始會員(包括國立臺灣大學、 北京大學、香港大學、首爾大學、新加坡大學等 13 所大學法學院)的努力經營推廣，已建立起相當的 學術公信力，成為目前亞洲法學者學術交流的重要平臺。 「亞洲法學會」第九屆學術研討會是由新加坡大學主辦，並在新加坡大學法學院舉行。本人於本 年度的研究案主題文義侵害與申請專利範圍之解釋，因國內適逢專利法修正，新增定「合理權利金」 為損害賠償計算方式，且專利損害賠償實為「專利侵害」的後續重要議題，因此，本人即以 “Reasonable Royalties and the Calculation of Patent Damages: Some Reflections and Recommendations for a Fair and Adequate Calculating Basis of Reasonable Royalties in Terms of Harmonization of China-Taiwan Regional Patent Laws”為題，以摘要申請發表，獲審通過。
二、與會心得
本次大會共舉行二天，2012 年 5 月 31 日至 6 月 1 日。因學術主題分配之故，本人的文章發表被 安排於第五個場次，6 月 1 日下午 2 時 15 分， Panel B5。計畫編號
NSC 100－2410－H－004－192－
計畫名稱
專利文義侵害的認定—以美國法為借鏡探討「申請專利範圍」的解釋出國人員
姓名
沈宗倫
服務機構
及職稱
國立政治大學法律學系副教授
會議時間
2012 年 5 月 31 日
至 2012 年 6 月 1
日
會議地點
新加坡國立大學(NUS)
會議名稱
(中文)
(英文)
9th ASLI Conference 2012發表論文
題目
(中文)
( 英 文 )
Reasonable Royalties and the Calculation of Patent Damages: Some Reflections and Recommendations for a Fair and Adequate Calculating Basis of Reasonable Royalties in Terms of Harmonization of China-Taiwan Regional Patent Laws2
大會第一天 5 月 31 日，主要的行程是聆聽金融法、公司法與資訊法有關場次的論文發表，包括國 立政治大學張冠群教授所發表的 “Milestone Legislation in Financial Consumer Protection in East Asia:–Explanations and Critiques on the New Consumer Financial Protection Act in Taiwan”; 國立政治大學 林郁馨教授所發表的 Rethinking Director Independence in Asian Society: A View From Social Network and Access to Information”; 國立臺灣大學劉靜怡教授與國立政治大學李治安教授所發表的 “Searching for Internet Freedom in China: A Case Study on Google's China Experience”。
本人所發表的場次為第五個場次 Panel B5，主要是智慧財產權法的相關議題。主持人為日本九州大學 的 Antonio Formacion 教授。第一位報告者為香港大學的博士候選人 Jie Hua。發表的主題為 “The Reconstruction of Chinese Copyright Fair Use System in the Digital Network Age: the Importation of Legal Flexibility and Certainty”，主要是以數位網路時代為背景，檢討中國著作權法關於「合理使用」的解釋 適用，希望藉由比較法的觀察與本國判決的回顧，尋求一個合宜的「合理使用」模式。第二位報告者 為東海大學的許曉芬教授，發表主題為 “Climate Change and the Patent System: What is The Role for Patent Law in Asia Post-Copenhagen?”，研究方向主要是針對環保政策下「綠能科技」與專利制度的問 題，特別提及為鼓勵「綠能科技」的發展，各國專利主管機關於審查或獎勵政策的因應之道。第三位 發表者為本人。題目為“Reasonable Royalties and the Calculation of Patent Damages: Some Reflections and Recommendations for a Fair and Adequate Calculating Basis of Reasonable Royalties in Terms of Harmonization of China-Taiwan Regional Patent Laws”。望能由臺灣與中國大陸專利法「和諧化」的角度， 試圖尋求「合理權利金」在損害賠償計算的定性，以及衡量「合理權利金」所應考量的因素。此一研 究，有助於釐清「合理權利金」與「授權權利金」的區別，並基於體系化的概念下，協助兩岸法院於 衡量「合理權利金」時，建立應有的立場與態度。實為本年度「專利文義侵害」研究成果的延伸。最 後一位發表者為日本中央大學教授 Keita Sato，所發表的文章主要是以比較法的角度，討論「設計專利」 的專利審查問題，題目為 “Is Design Novelty Examination Still Needed?”
本文於此次「亞洲法學會」第九屆學術研討會發表的文章，經在場學者的討論，本人會後調整研 究內容，投稿至美國 Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property(美國伊利諾理工學院的法學院所發 行，該院以智慧財產法著稱)，幸經審查刊登，最快將於本年 12 月刊登。
三、考察參觀活動：
無四、建議
「亞洲法學會」近年來致力於亞洲法學與文化價值的學術交流。亞洲區域的法制與相關文化的整 合，就全球化的觀點而言，實為一重要的進程。臺灣法學者除將關懷本土法制發展作為本務外，適度 地將研究成果透過學術平臺，分享於國外，輸出臺灣本土的法學價值，亦為一可期待的重要工作。希 望，未來能繼續就研究成果為國際發表，充分發揮臺灣智慧財產學者對於亞洲地區法制發展的影響力。五、攜回資料名稱及內容：
會議手冊六、其他：
所發表論文之初稿3
Law: An Asian Identity?
9
th
Asian Law Institute Conference
Thursday and Friday, 31 May and 1 June 2012, Singapore
COVER PAGE FOR PAPER SUBMISSION
Reasonable Royalties and the Calculation of Patent Damages: Some Reflections and Recommendations for a Fair and Adequate Calculating Basis of Reasonable Royalties in Terms of
Harmonization of China-Taiwan Regional Patent Laws
Chung-Lun Shen
Associate Professor, College of Law, National Chengchi University
[email protected]; [email protected]
Note:
Please note that ASLI will distribute the papers to conference participants only for the sole purpose of discussion. The papers might also be put on a USB thumb drive to be distributed to conference participants. Neither the copies in the USB drive nor the printed copies of individual papers will constitute publication; papers will not thereafter be published by the conference organizers nor made available to individuals or libraries. Presenters retain the copyright to their papers and are free to commit them for publication elsewhere. All papers should not be cited without prior permission from the authors.
For ASLI Secretariat Use Only Date of Presentation
(delete where applicable):
Thursday, 31 May 2012 Friday, 1 June 2012* Panel Assigned:
4
Reasonable Royalties and the Calculation of Patent Damages: Some Reflections and Recommendations for a Fair and Adequate Calculating Basis of Reasonable Royalties in Terms of Harmonization of China-Taiwan
Regional Patent Laws
Chung-Lun Shen
I. Introduction
II. The Legal Structure of Patent damages under Taiwanese and Chinese Patent Laws A. Calculation of Patent damages under Taiwan Patent Act
1. The Position of Patent Damages under Traditional Damage Law a. Paragraph one of Article 85 of Current Taiwan Patent Act b. Paragraph two of Article 85 of Current Taiwan Patent Act 2. Correlation between Paragraph one and two of Article 85
3. The Gaps for Remedies under Patent Law
a. Patented Products not Available in the Time of Infringement b. Infringed Products not Available in the Time of Infringement c. Method Patents with a Remote Product
d. Specific Exclusive Rights without Performance in the Market 4. Resolution for Remedy Gaps through Reasonable Royalties
a. First Stage: Judicial Cases’ Approach
b. Second Stage: Codification of Authority of Reasonable Royalties B. Calculation of Patent damages under China Patent Act
III. Functioning for Sufficient Patent Damages: Reasonable Royalties Works with other Alternatives A. Bafflement from Assertion of a Single Patent Infringement
B. Two Possible Interpretations for Sufficient Patent Damages
1. Calculation of Damages in Accordance with each Exclusive Right 2. Extending the Basis of Reasonable Royalties
IV. Determination of Reasonable Royalties for Patent Damages A. The Property of Reasonable Royalties
B. Establishment of the Preliminary Rate for Reasonable Royalties C. Patent Value and Reasonable Royalties
1. Causation of Patented Technologies 2. Causation of Patented Products
D. The Entire Market Value Rule and Reasonable Royalties V. Conclusion
5 I. Introduction
Recently, Taiwan has been working with China for the harmonization of intellectual property laws in the region of cross-straits, which may be consider a significant part of Asian regional integration on intellectual property policies playing an active role in movement of post-TRRIPS in the future1. In 2010, “the Cross-Straits Intellectual Property Rights Protection Agreement” was concluded and came into effect2. It is a great step for Taiwan and China for mutual cooperation on the aspects of acquisition, maintenance, and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including, for example, the mutual recognition of priority over the earlier-filed application on patent, trademark and plant variety right3, themutual cooperation in the prosecution of patent and plant variety right4, the certification of copyrighted works5, and the establishment of coordinated mechanism for the resolution of specific issues over on-line piracy, and the protection of famous marks as well as geographic indication6. This agreement is substantially leading to the harmonization of substantive issues under intellectual property laws in the future.
Among the substantive issues of patent law, the patent enforcement has been receiving more focuses in the global community7. Owing to the intangible characteristic of patent, and in view of the symmetry of exclusive rights with damages, it always besets the public with how to calculate appropriate damages under patent infringement8. Comparing with the traditional calculation of patent damages resting upon patentee’s losses or infringer’s profits, the basis of reasonable royalties provides with flexible concept to accommodate damages in some circumstances where run into difficulties in proof of damages, especially, when the patented or infringed products were not available in the market at the time of infringement9. Until the amendment of Taiwan Patent Act in 2011, the authority of reasonable royalties as patent damages officially was codified10. China Patent Act has admitted the remedy of patent infringement subject to reasonable royalties since 200011. As this author observed, in light of development of comparative patent laws and original jurisprudence guiding patent law, the provisions of Taiwan Patent Act and China Patent Act on the reasonable royalties as patent damages have still room to accept more delicate interest consideration for refinement. Consequently, this article attempts to establish an optimal model as a reference for the application of related provisions in
1
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, LEGAL INSTRUMENTS—RESULTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND vol. 31, 33 I.L.M. 81 (1994) [hereinafter the TRIPS Agreement].
2
See the Cross-Straits Intellectual Property Protection Agreement (the original text in Chinese), available at
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID=4578 (last visit April 26, 2012) [hereinafter Cross-Straits Agreement].
3
See Article 2 of Cross-Straits Agreement.
4
See Articles 3-4 of Cross-Straits Agreement.
5
See Article 6 of Cross-Straits Agreement.
6
See Article 7 of Cross-Straits Agreement.
7
Notwithstanding a limited meaning toward patent law, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is accounting for the international focus upon strengthening the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
See Peter K. Yu, Six Secret (and Now Open) Fears of ACTA, 64 SMUL.REV. 975, 977-79 (2011).
8
See infra note 12-30 and accompanying text.
9
See infra “II, 4” of this article.
10
See infra note 34-37 and accompanying text.
11
6
future judicial practice. This author hopes that the proposed model, originating from this author’s academic thoughts, could contribute a common guideline for the determination of reasonable royalties to the regional harmonization of patent laws of Taiwan and China.
II. The Legal Structure of Patent damages under Taiwanese and Chinese Patent Laws
A. Calculation of Patent damages under Taiwan Patent Act
1. The Position of Patent Damages under Traditional Damage Law
Patent damages have been among the most controversial issues under patent law in the global community. Although Paragraph one of Article 85 under current Taiwan Patent Act was designed exclusively for patent damages, this provision is worth being further reviewed and clarified, in view of either academic argument or practical development.
a. Subparagraph one, Paragraph one of Article 85 of Current Taiwan Patent Act
Firstly, under Taiwanese civil legal system, the damages of properties should be limited to the damage to the properties and the loss of economic interests enjoyed by the owners, according to Paragraph one of Article 216 of Taiwan Civil Code12. Instead of a legal model paralleling civil law with commercial law, Taiwanese legal system adopted the concept of convergence to consider civil law a series of fundamental stipulations, and to allow a series of special stipulations under commercial law, provided that no similar or overlapping provisions were found under civil and commercial laws13. The traditional interpretation on civil legal system led us to recognize Paragraph one of Article 216 of Taiwan Civil Code has set up the scope of damages, as a fundamental stipulation. When Paragraph one of Article 85 under current Taiwan Patent Act was enacted, on the provision of damages, the collision between civil law and patent law is hard to settle. One branch of bifurcation took the traditional argument to position this provision of patent law as damage calculation, subject to the scope of damages under civil law14. Another branch tended to prioritize patent law over civil law to have a special scope of damages, on the ground of the difference of patent from traditional tangible properties15.
12
Paragraph one of Article 216 of Taiwan Civil Code states: “Except as otherwise stipulated in this or other Acts, or contracts, the damages ought to be limited to the compensation to any damage or loss borne by an oblige (translated by this author).
13
See TEZ-CHIEN WANG,THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF CIVIL CODE, 2d ed., at 18-19, San Mig Publishing, 2008, Taipei.
14
See Chung-Lun Shen, Adequate Interpretation and Reconstruction of Causation of Patent Damage, TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW, vol. 8, no. 1, at 12-13, June 2011. (Taiwanese citation)(hereinafter “Causation of Patent Damage”)
15
See Chung-Hsin Hsu, Examing the Compensation Liability for Patent Infringement in Taiwan from the
Perspective of German Law, TAIPEI UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, no. 61, at 13, March 2007. (Taiwanese citation)
7
Secondly, even though Article 85 of Taiwan Patent Act is positioned as a provision for patent damage calculation subject to the damage scope of Paragraph one of Article 216 of Taiwan Civil Code, there are four approaches available for the patentee to select a suitable one to calculate patent damages, when patent infringement occurred. The first approach is used to measure patent damages, provided that the patent could prove the damages of patent and losses of economic interests derived from patent. This approach may be considered a confirmation of Paragraph one of Article 216 of Taiwan Civil Code, but is rarely applied in Taiwanese judicial cases due to its difficulty in proof of damages or losses of patent, distinguished from traditional tangible properties16. The second approach, similar to the first approach, is established on the basis of depreciation of patent value to function for calculation of patent damages. That is well-known “lost profits” measurement. The legislators intend to allow the patentee to seek patent damages, as long as the difference between expected profits made through using a patent but for the patent infringement and real profits made after patent infringement invaded to the market could be proven17. Certainly, this approach should be applied cautiously. To ignore the appropriate causation on substitution effects of infringed products in the market would bring overcompensation into the patentee to devastate the interest balance under patent law18. As a matter of fact, this approach seems to be stretched from the first one, on the ground that the difference of profits lost mentioned above is substantially among the various forms of damages or losses that the first approach is applied to cover. But, according to the common interpretation, the second approach run independently of the first one in patent damage calculation19.
b. Subparagraph two, Paragraph one of Article 85 of Current Taiwan Patent Act
The other two approaches, different from the former two ones based upon the positive economic value of a patent, are through measuring the profits made by the infringer, when the patent infringement occurred in the market, to calculate patent damages. The nature of infringing profits is originally thought of as unjust enrichment from patent infringement, but, in view of the fact that the sales of infringed products are open to
16
Paragraph one, Article 85 of Taiwan Patent Act states: “To claim damages in accordance with the preceding Article, any of the following options may be adopted for calculating of the amount of damages:To claim in accordance with Article 216 of the Civil Code. A patentee may, however, take the balance derived by subtracting the profit earned through the practice of his/her patent after the existence of infringement from the profit normally expected through the practice of the same patent as the amount of the damages, provided that no proving method can be presented to justify the damages; To claim based on the profit earned by the infringer as a result of his/her infringement act. The entire income derived from the sale of the infringing articles shall be deemed the infringer's profit, provided that the infringer is unable to produce proof to justify his/her costs or necessary expenses.”, the official edition of trandaltion, promulgated by Intellectual Property Office, Ministry of Economic Affairs, R.O.C., available at http://www.tipo.gov.tw/en/AllInOne_Show.aspx?guid=173f4350-93d4-43c9-a475-042ce0f3ac8c&lang=en-us&path=1448 (last visit April 26, 2012).
The authority of the first approach is the first sentence of Subparagraph one, Paragraph one, Article 85 of Taiwan Patent Act (“To claim in accordance with Article 216 of the Civil Code.”).
17
The authority of the second approach is the proviso of Subparagraph one, Paragraph one, Article 85 of Taiwan Patent Act (“A patentee may, however, take the balance derived by subtracting the profit earned through the practice of his/her patent after the existence of infringement from the profit normally expected through the practice of the same patent as the amount of the damages, provided that no proving method can be presented to justify the damages.”)
18
See MING-YAN SHIEH, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, 2nd ed., at 357-58, Angle Publishing, 2011, Taipei; Shen, supra note 14, Causation of Patent Damage, at 14-17.
19
See MING-CHENG TSAI, STUDIES ON INVENTION PATENT LAW, 3d.ed., at 234-35, National Taiwan University College of Law, 2000, Taipei.
8
the public in the markets, these approaches are expected to provide the patentee with other options to overcome the possible predicament on proofs of patent damages required by the former two approaches, even though there is a risk of confusing patent damages with the remedy of unjust enrichment. The application of the third approach may be analogous to the disgorging of infringing profits to the patentee, and allows the patent to take infringing profits made by patent infringement into the scope of patent damages20. Certainly, the causation between infringing profits and patent infringement should be emphasized to avoid the distortion of damages21. The fourth approach is applied to take the sale revenue of infringed products as patent damages, provided that the infringer could not prove relevant costs together with the manufacture and marketing of infringed products22. From the texture of Subparagraph two, Paragraph one of Article 85, it suggests that the fourth approach be designed to supplement the application of the third one as special provision on the proof burden23. In other words, in order to ensure the patentee’s adequate remedy and resolve the difficulty on proving aforesaid costs, all the patent should do is to show the court the sale revenue of infringed products, and then patent damages are presumed. At the same time, the burden of proof for deducting relevant costs from the aforesaid revenue is already shifted to the infringer. If the infringer fails in proving relevant costs, patent damages are calculated with the sale revenue of infringed products. Under Taiwanese academic and practical interpretation, the third approach and the fourth one are applied independently of each other24. However, it seems reasonable to consider the two approaches being under the same provision. Under the concept of calculating patent damages with the infringer’s profits, the third and fourth approached noted above are substantially positioned as the division of proof burden. The former is applied to ascertain the patentee’s proof burden in the sale revenue of infringed products, and the fourth one focuses upon the proof of relevant costs to the sale revenue, borne by the infringer25. The two approaches should have functioned jointly, rather than separately, in calculating patent damages.
20
The authority of of the third approach is the first sentence of Subparagraph two, Paragraph one, Article 85 of Taiwan Patent Act (“To claim based on the profit earned by the infringer as a result of his/her infringement act.”).
21
At least one judicial decision in Taiwan recognized that the profits made by the infringer should be limited to be caused by the uses of the patent. However, how to set up a rule of causation for the calculation of patent damage under the third approach has not been instructed in judicial practices. In particular, the infringers used the patent to manufacture the products, which were distinguished from the patented products in the market. See the Decision of the Taichung Branch of Taiwan High Court: Gao Deng Fa Yuan Tai Zhonng Fen Yuan 93 Nian Du Zhi Shang Geng 1 Zi Di 1Hao Min Shi Pan Jue(臺灣高等法院臺中分院 93 年 度智上更(一)字第 1 號民事判決), available at
In respect of academic discussions about this issue, please see Shen, supra note 14, Causation of Patent
Damage, at 39-43. 22
The authority of of the fourth approach is the second sentence of Subparagraph two, Paragraph one, Article 85 of Taiwan Patent Act (“The entire income derived from the sale of the infringing articles shall be deemed the infringer's profit, provided that the infringer is unable to produce proof to justify his/her costs or necessary expenses.”).
23
See the context of Paragraph one, Article 85 of Taiwan Patent Act, supra note 16.
24
See Tsai, supra note 19, at 234-35.
25
See Shen, supra note 14, Causation of Patent Damage, at 10-12. Although the calculation of patent damages is kept from the basis of the infringer’s profit under current U.S. patent law, the models adopted under U.S. trademark and copyright laws strongly suggests such division about proof burden in the infringer’s profits. See 15 U.S.C.§ 1117(a); 17 U.S.C.§ 504(b).
9
2. Correlation between Paragraph one and two of Article 85
It is worth noting under Taiwanese legal system of patent damages that two significant structural aspects are always leading the development of judicial cases and practical settlement, over the issues of patent damages. One aspect is about the correlation of the four approaches for patent damages under Paragraph one of Article 85 of Taiwan Patent Act. Anther one is reflected in the legal loopholes of remedies according to the interpretation of this Article.
The most critical issues about aforesaid correlation in Taiwan is whether the patentee could select more than a approach to fit infringing situations for the damage calculation, under each single act of patent infringement, provided that there are no double remedies? For example, under a single act of patent infringement, the infringer manufactured and sold the patented products without the authorization of the patentee. On the condition that a part of infringed products resulted in the substitution effects in the market, and the rest didn’t, was the patentee entitled to selecting the second approach mentioned above to calculate lost profits caused by the former infringed products, and the third or fourth one to cover the infringer’s profits made through the sale of the latter infringed products？ The more persuasive interpretation about the above problem in Taiwan is to touch upon the literal text of Paragraph one of Article 85 of Taiwan Patent Act. The beginning text of Article 85 of Taiwan Patent Act clearly states that the patentee can select any approach at its will to calculate patent damages. As a consequence, it seems unlikely for the patentee to select more than one approach for the calculation of patent damages, even a multi-calculation is to secure the adequate compensation for patent infringement. For the sake of avoiding the risk of under-compensation, the acceptable consensus in the judicial practice suggests that the patentee may select more than one approach for patent damages in the judicial proceedings, and the court will make a final ruling to select the most appropriate approach applied in calculating patent damages, for the patentee26. But this idea didn’t fundamentally change the legal model for Paragraph one of Article 85 of Taiwan Patent Act, which merely allows one approach for the calculation of patent damages.
3. The Gaps for Remedies under Patent Law
a. Patented Products not Available at the Time of Infringement
As mentioned above, the authority of the second approach is the proviso of Subparagraph one, Paragraph one of Article 85. The text of this provision states that the patentee may take the subtraction of the profits made through the practice of a patent after infringement from the anticipated ones made but for infringement to calculate damages, if the patentee can not provide with sufficient evidence to prove damages on which the body of Subparagraph one, Paragraph one of Article 85 is based. Basically, the interpretation of “the profits made through the practice of a patent” is literally restricted to apply a precondition that the patentee has been
26
See the 2009 symposium of intellectual property law, issue No.8 of the civil procedure division, Judicial
Yuan, June 22, 2009. (民國 98 年 6 月 22 日司法院 98 年度智慧財產法律座談會提案及研討結果，民事訴 訟類第 8 號)
10
selling the patented products in the market27. As a consequence, a gap for remedies will be produced, if the patentee has no plan to sell patented products in the market at that time when the patent infringement is conducted. Under such a circumstance, it seems that no substitution effects in the market happened to patented products. The patentee is in no position to assert the proviso of Subparagraph one, Paragraph one of Article 85 to calculate patent damages, even though the infringer truly practiced the patent without the authorization in the infringed products.
b. Infringed Products not Available in the Time of Infringement
Regardless of the third or fourth approach noted above, similar to calculation of patent damages through the second one, it is possible for the patentee to also run into a gap of remedies. According to the interpretation of Subparagraph two, Paragraph one of Article 85, the calculation of patent damages is relied upon the infringer’s profits made through the practice of a patent. Those profits are usually recognized as ones resulting from the sale of infringed products in the market28. The patentee will be deprived of this kind of calculation of damages, if the infringer doesn’t put infringed products into the market to infringe upon the patentee. One possible way to fill the gap of remedies is to broaden the literal indication of the infringer’s profits made through the practice of a patent to cover the occasions under which the infringers did not sell the infringed products in the market. The concern about the infringer’s profits may be shifted to the advantage-taking of the internal value of a patent, rather than the sales of infringed products. Under this concept, the royalties saved by the infringer due to patent infringement seems to be within the infringer’s profits. However, such interpretation substantially takes the risk to blur the boundaries between damages and the remedy of unjust enrichment, at least, in the jurisdiction of Taiwanese Laws.
c. Method Patents with a Remote Product
Traditionally, two primary types of patents under patent law are article patents and method patents. It is worth clarifying that the practice of method patents doesn’t always lead directly to patented products which are evaluated meaningfully under patent law. The exclusive rights under method patents seem to be merely applied to the infringed products directly manufactured by the practice of patents29. Any indirect or remote infringed products resulting from the practice of patents are not within the exclusive rights of the patentee. Based upon this inference, if the infringer manufactured and sold such indirect or remote infringed products to make profits, Subparagraph two, Paragraph one of Article 85 can’t be viewed as an appropriate authority to calculate patent damages by considering the aforesaid profits. The only feasible way to calculate patent damages is to resort to the manufacture of infringed products. Under method patents, the manufacture of infringed products may be considered the use of patents, which involves in the consumption of internal values
27
SeeJUNG-REN JENG,THE ANNOTATED TAIWAN PATENT ACT, Chapter 2, at170-77, Kao-Une Publishing, 2009, Taipei.
28
Id. at 172.
29
Article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement: “A patent shall confer on its owner the following exclusive rights: (b) where the subject matter of a patent in a process, to prevent third parties not having the owner’s consent from the act of using the process, and from the acts of: using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes at least the product obtained directly by that process.”(emphasis added).
11
of patents. However, through the overview of traditional Taiwanese patent law system, especially on Paragraph one of Article 85, it is difficult to find an authority to calculate damages just by the evaluation of patent values, other than the sale of patented or infringed products. Certainly, due to the jurisprudence of the exclusive rights under method patents, the patentee is also faced of a predicament on the calculation of damages. The sale of patented products made indirectly or remotely from the practice of a patent will weaken the justification to seek the proviso of Subparagraph one and two, Paragraph one of Article 85 as an authority to calculate damage by considering the substitution effects in the market or the profits enjoyed by the infringer.
d. Specific Exclusive Rights without Performance in the Market
Among the exclusive rights for the patentee, taking the example of article patents, it seems that the rights involved in substantive marketing effects are limited to exclude others from selling or importing patented products. Even though the patentee has already the marketing plan for the patented products, the infringement occurred just when the patented products were made and ready to sell. Under this situation, owing to no instant substitution effects in the market, the patentee also run into the hardship for the calculation of patent damages, through the proviso of Subparagraph one, Paragraph one of Article 85. Similarly, the patentee is prevented from applying Subparagraph two, Paragraph one of Article 85 to take infringer’s profits as damages, when the third parties didn’t take advantage of selling or importing infringed products to infringe upon the patent. This is the gap of remedies in views of the violation of exclusive rights.
4. Resolution for Remedy Gaps through Reasonable Royalties
a. First Stage: Judicial Cases’ Approach
As a matter of fact, Taiwanese judicial practices have recognized that the gaps of remedies would not only contradit with the desires of patent protection and industrial development, but also fail to comply with the gist of patent law. Without adequate authority, but through the interpretation of Paragraph one of Article 85, the courts in judicial cases established the concept of “royalties lost” or “reasonable royalties” to fill the aforesaid gaps of remedies reflected in the calculation of patent damages. Firstly, one court among those cases, at least, ever held that “royalties lost” or “reasonable royalties” is within the scope of damages under Paragraph one of Article 216 of Taiwan Civil Code. As a consequence, when the defendant violated the exclusive right of “offering to sell” of the plaintiff by uploading the catalogs on the website as advertisements, the plaintiff was entitled to “royalties lost” or “reasonable royalties” as patent damages, which would have been negotiated and agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant had the patent infringement not occurred30.
30
See, e.g., Zhi Hui Cai Chan Fa Yuan 99 Nian Du Min Zhuan Shang Geng 1Zi Di 10 Hao Pan Jue (智慧財 產法院 99 年度民專上更(一)字第 10 號判決)(focusing on reasonable royalties); Zhi Hui Cai Chan Fa Yuan 99 Nian Du Min Zhuan Swu Zi Di 66 Hao Pan Jue (智慧財產法院 99 年度民專訴字第 66 號判決) (focusing on reasonable royalties); Zhi Hui Cai Chan Fa Yuan 97 Nian Du Min Zhuan Swu Zi Di 66 Hao Pan Jue (智慧 財產法院 97 年度民專訴字第 66 號判決) (focusing on reasonable royalties); Zhi Hui Cai Chan Fa Yuan 98 Nian Du Min Zhuan Shang Yi Geng 1Zi Di 25 Hao Pan Jue (智慧財產法院 98 年度民專上易字第 25 號判
