- <![CDATA[商標侵權案件定暫時狀態處分審酌因素之釋明──以eBay案後美國法發展與我國判決實務為中心]]>科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>商標侵權案件定暫時狀態處分審酌因素之釋明──以eBay案後美國法發展與我國判決實務為中心 The Preliminary Showing on the Factors of Preliminary Injunction in Trademark Infringement Cases ─Focusing on American Law after the eBay Case and Taiwan Court Decisions</strong></span><br />
作者：范智達<br />
出版年月：201512<br />
關鍵詞：商標、侵權、定暫時狀態處分、不可回復損害、商譽、Injunction、Trademark、Infringement、Irreparable Harm、Goodwill<br />
<br />
中文摘要:<br />
2006年美國聯邦最高法院在eBay v. MercExchange案中認為法院在審酌是否准許或拒絕禁制令時，應在每一個案件以衡平四要素測試法（four-factor test）加以判斷，進而審酌禁制令之核發。即所謂「衡平原則」要求法院在核發禁制令時，適用傳統四要素測試法作為衡量標準，原告必須證明1.本案勝訴之可能性；2.法律所提供之救濟方法，包括金錢賠償，不能足以彌補其所受之損害；3.衡量原告與被告所遭遇困境，以及4.核發禁制令不會危害公共利益。然而，傳統上在評價個別商標侵權案件是否導致不可回復之損害——禁制令必要條件——美國聯邦法院通常認定當發現商標有混淆之虞即會推定具有不可回復之損害，其實商標侵權案件發現被告需負侵權責任時，商譽流失之本質上不可回復損害推定之適用，eBay案其實應該不能有所影響。假如商標侵權案件成立侵權與否之檢驗標準——混淆之虞——在界定上幾乎為不可回復，則顯示不可回復損害之分析不僅多餘的，且要求原告花費額外資源證明實質不可回復損害係無效率的。在我國商標侵權定暫時狀態處分之案件，原告常僅就本案法律關係及商標侵權行為事實提出證據資料為積極之釋明，並未積極就不可回復損害、兩造利益之衡量、是否影響公共利益等事實提出事實證據資料，而法院則以本案勝訴可能性為最重要考量之關鍵因素，顯然我國實務上智慧財產權案件，又尤其在商標侵權案件就定暫時狀態處分之聲請，並不需要原告負擔所有審酌因素之舉證責任並不相符。既然商標侵權案件成立侵權與否之主要檢驗標準——「混淆之虞」——對商品製造人及消費者之損害，本質上並不僅為金錢之認定，而且為商譽上之損害難以數字表示，便可不須要求原告花費額外資源去釋明本案勝訴可能性以外之其他因素事實。<br />
<br />
英文摘要:<br />
In eBay v. MercExchange (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts must apply the traditional four-factor test for injunctive relief in every case. These “principles of equity” required courts to employ the traditional four-factor test under which the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success of the merits; (2) the existence of irreparable harm; (3) that the bal-ance of hardships tilts in favor of injunctive relief; and (4) that granting an injunction would not harm the public interest. But when assessing whether a particular instance of trademark infringement resulted in “irreparable harm” U.S. federal courts almost uniformly presumed such irreparable harm upon a finding of likelihood of confusion. In fact, the eBay rules should not be used to eviscerate the normal presumption of irreparable harm that attaches upon a showing of liability in trademark cases. In our country when granting or deny-ing preliminary injunction of trademark infringement cases, the plaintiff often provides a preliminary showing with regard to the existence of legal relation and trademark infringement documentary evidence, not actively providing the existence of irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships tilts in favor of injunctive relief and that an injunction is in the public interest. The court re-viewing an application for preliminary injunction deliberates on the likelihood of success on the merits as the most important consideration. Compared with patent and copyright cases of the discretion of the preliminary injunction, the court mainly deliberates on the likelihood of success and the existence of ir-reparable harm as the most important factor. It is clear intellectual property cases, especially trademark cases on the set of preliminary injunction claim, do not require the plaintiff to take the burden of all factors of trial discretion in Taiwan. Because these harms to producers and consumers stemming from a likelihood of consumer confusion are not merely monetary in nature, they are reputational and difficult to quantify. The plaintiff does not need to spend ad-ditional resources to prove that other factors other than “a likelihood of suc-cess on the merits”.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0001&detailNo=1401060190576447488&type=s商標侵權案件定暫時狀態處分審酌因素之釋明──以eBay案後美國法發展與我國判決實務為中心
- <![CDATA[逆向給付爭議——競爭法與專利法之交錯]]>科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>逆向給付爭議——競爭法與專利法之交錯 Reverse Payment Controversy: Interaction between Competition Law and Patent Law</strong></span><br />
作者：蔡鎛宇<br />
出版年月：201512<br />
關鍵詞：學名藥、逆向付款、推定違法、合理原則、專利權利範圍法、Generic Drug、Reverse Payment、Pay for Delay、Rule of Reason、Presumptively Illegal<br />
<br />
中文摘要:<br />
在探討與專利有關的協議是否違反競爭法時，不論在歐盟或是美國，專利權利範圍說原本都是實務上所常見的判斷方式。逆向給付協議亦為一種專利協議，在歐盟或美國皆屢見不鮮，係指原藥廠對於學名藥廠進行給付以換取學名藥延後進入市場。然而，饒富趣味的是，在逆向給付協議究竟應以推定違法、專利權利範圍說，抑或合理原則，來判斷是否違反競爭法的這個問題上，歐盟以及美國實務卻都不採取專利權利範圍說。歐盟執委會在最近幾年的逆向給付協議案件之判斷上採取了推定違法，而2013年美國聯邦最高法院所做出Actavis之判決則是以合理原則來判斷。本文將探討歐美間之差異，兼論我國之相關競爭法制。<br />
<br />
英文摘要:<br />
In Europe and in the United States, the reverse payment settlements reached between pharmaceutical manufacturers have been heard over and over again. Reverse payment settlement refers to the payment made to the ge-neric drug manufacturers in exchange for delaying generic drug’s entrance into market. Interestingly, Europe and the United States provide different an-swers as to construing the reverse payment settlement as a matter presumptive-ly illegal or as a matter to be judged based on rule of reason when it comes to ruling whether or not a reverse payment settlement is in violation of anti-competition law. In recent years, EU Commission ruled most cases related to reverse payment settlement presumptively illegal. In 2013, however, the Su-preme Court of the United States used rule of reason in Actavis. Both of them concurrently abandoned the “Scope of the Patent” test. With the discussions stated above, this paper focused on the difference between Europe and the United States regarding reverse payment settlements for the reference of Tai-wan.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0001&detailNo=1401059776657362944&type=s逆向給付爭議——競爭法與專利法之交錯
- <![CDATA[功能用語請求項明確性之臺灣判決案例研究]]>科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>功能用語請求項明確性之臺灣判決案例研究 Definiteness of Means/Steps-Plus-Function Clams—A Cases Study of Taiwan’s Courts Decisions</strong></span><br />
作者：郭榮光、江浣翠 (Wan-Tsui Chiang)<br />
出版年月：201512<br />
關鍵詞：手段功能用語、步驟功能用語、功能用語、明確性、充分揭露、 Means-plus-function、Steps-plus-function、Functional Claim、Definiteness、Full Disclosure<br />
<br />
中文摘要:<br />
我國專利法施行細則第19條第四項規定，請求項之技術特徵得以手段功能用語或步驟功能用語撰寫，惟此種以功能取代請求項技術特徵之結構、材料或動作之功能用語撰寫方式，於說明書中應有如何的支持，方能滿足專利法第26條第二項的請求項明確性要件，專利法與專利法施行細則均無規定。相較於我國法院判決認為，功能用語請求項與說明書中的內容，以該發明領域具有通常知識者可以理解並可據以實施即為已足，美國法院有不同之處理。在美國法院的解釋下，雖美國專利法第112條第(f)項明訂申請人得以功能用語界定專利請求項，但仍不得違反第112條第(b)項的請求項明確性義務，即申請人應特別指出與清楚說明其發明，使公眾得以理解其請求項的權利範圍，故美國法院認為縱使申請人得依第112條第(f)項以功能用語界定專利，但為符合第112條第(b)項的請求項明確性規定，使PHOSITA得以瞭解請求項確切的權利範圍，說明書中仍應撰寫對應該功能的結構、材料或動作，以防止專利申請人欲以功能用語將所有得達成該功能的技術納入專利權利範圍，而有害公益。本文認為美國基於防止專利申請人濫用功能用語之撰寫方式，將所有能達成所稱功能之結構、材料或動作納入請求項中而妨害專利之公示效果，要求申請人須於說明書中撰寫對應該功能的結構、材料或動作之解釋，應較符合明確性要件之法理，建議我國未來無論於立法或司法機關，應採納此一見解以解決手段功能用語或步驟功能用語之明確性問題。另外，本文亦主張手段功能用語與步驟功能用語係分別用以撰寫物之發明與方法發明，前者應於說明書中對應有形之結構、材料，後者應於說明書中對應無形之動作、流程，二者不得互換，否則該請求項即不明確。<br />
<br />
英文摘要:<br />
Article 19(4) of Taiwan’s Enforcement Rules of the Patent Act permits means-plus-function and steps-plus-function claims. However, without recit-ing the structure, material or acts performing the claimed function, claims may face challenges about the definiteness requirement. One of the related debates is whether the specification should recite the corresponding structure, material or acts of the claimed function. This issue has been brought up both in Taiwan and U.S. jurisdictions. This study compares Taiwan court decisions with the U.S. decisions which touch on the definiteness of means-plus-function and steps-plus-function claims. We find that while the U.S. courts require that the specification has to recite the corresponding structure, material or acts of means-plus-function and steps-plus-function claims to satisfy the definiteness requirement, Taiwan courts do not adopt the same standard. This study argues that by requiring specifications disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts implementing claimed function to satisfy the definiteness requirement, the standard made by U.S. court decisions limits the metes and bounds of means-plus-function and steps-plus-function claims to a more reasonable ex-tent in order to prevent the abuse of functional claims. This study further sug-gests that Taiwan’s legislative and judicial branches of the government should adopt the same standard to prevent future definiteness disputes. Additionally, this study contends that means-plus-function can be used for device claims while steps-plus-function can be used for method claims. Due to this distinc-tion, this study concludes that the corresponding disclosure of means-plus-function claims in the specification should be structures or materials which have concrete forms, while the corresponding disclosure of steps-plus-function claims in the specification should be acts which should have no con-crete forms.<br />
<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0001&detailNo=1401059404366745600&type=s功能用語請求項明確性之臺灣判決案例研究
- <![CDATA[越界建築與專利均等論]]>科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>越界建築與專利均等論 Building Encroachment and the Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law</strong></span><br />
作者：王敏銓<br />
出版年月：201512<br />
關鍵詞：邊界原則、越界建築、相鄰關係、專利均等論、外部性、內部化、不干預、衡平法、The Boundary Principle、Building Encroachment、Neigh-boring Relations、The Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law、Externalities、Internalization、Non-intervention、Eq-uity、Michael A. Heller、Frank I. Michelman、Henry E. Smith<br />
<br />
中文摘要:<br />
本文從一個美國財產法的法理論──「邊界原則」，來探討我國物權法中的相鄰關係，以及專利法中的均等論，指出此二種法律原則雖然權利歸屬的方向看似相反，但蘊含相同的原理，亦即基於衡平考量而作外部成本或外部效益的分配，亦即二者都是將零碎化的財產重新整併的規則。本文以Michael A. Heller的財產零碎化理論，以及Frank I. Michelman的私有財產效率論證，作為理論的基礎。Heller認為財產法中早已存在的邊界原則，目的在防止財產因過度切割而造成不能有效率利用。Michelman的私有財產組成規則中，內部化規則與不干預規則分別作為財產權的合併與分割的規則，是Heller的反零碎化理論的源起。本文主張，物權法中的越界建築，以及專利法中的均等論，均為Heller所描述的邊界原則及Michelman所描述的內部化規則的例子。<br />
越界建築中的土地購買請求權，為典型的內部化規則；基於內部化而整併權利，於法律論理上常顯示為衡平法的運作，而不干預原則常顯示為法律的形式推理。但物權法亦有不保存越界建築之效益，以及容許零碎化之情況，顯示經濟分析之推理，與法律的權利配置，二者並非完全一致。<br />
越界行為，即行為人的行為對他人產生外部性，此外部性可能為成本，亦可能為效益。在專利均等論，則是關於申請專利範圍之外的效益的分配。美國法院以案例法方式形成均等論，亦即將發明的外部效益全部分配給專利權人，此種內部化規則造成權利過份整併，在歷史上為美國聯邦最高法院與聯邦巡迴上訴法院的少數意見所反對。直到法院也發展出均等論限制原則，才用迂迴的方式將部分的效益重新歸類為外部效益，避免權利的完全整併。我國法院對均等論的存立基礎罕見發表意見，似為有缺憾之處。<br />
<br />
英文摘要:<br />
This article uses an American property theory—the boundary principle—to discuss the neighboring relations in Taiwan’s property law and the doctrine of equivalents in patent law. The aim is to point out that although these two branches of legal doctrines seemingly head toward the opposite directions concerning the distribution of rights, they both base on a similarly principle: to distribute positive or negative externalities in accordance with equitable con-siderations; both doctrines are anti-fragmentation principles aiming at recom-posing fragmented property rights. <br />
The theory of this article is founded on Michael A. Heller’s theory of an-ti-fragmentation and Frank I. Michelman’s arguments related to the efficiency of private property. Heller argues that the boundary principle long existing in property law is to prevent waste of resources caused by fragmentation. Michelman’s internalization and nonintervention rules, two composing princi-ples for an efficient private property regime, are the origin of Heller’s anti-fragmentation theory. This article asserts that the rules regarding building en-croachment and the doctrine of equivalents in patent law are the examples of Heller’s boundary principle and Michelman’s internalization principle. <br />
In the relation of building encroachment, the right to request land pur-chase by the trespasser is a typical internalization rule. To consolidate rights based on the reason of internalization often realizes in law as the operation of equity, and nonintervention rules appear as the formalistic reasoning of the law. Yet the fact that the law leaves ample possibility of unconsolidated frag-ments shows the disparity between the economic and the legal rationale. <br />
An act of encroachment is one that causes positive or negative externali-ties on another. The doctrine of equivalents in patent law is a set of rules that distributes the benefits beyond the literal scope of a patent claim. Formed by case law, the doctrine of equivalents used to distribute the whole external ben-efits to the patentee; this kind of internalization rule caused too much consoli-dation of the rights and was opposed by the dissenters at the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The development of the limiting rules of the doctrine of equivalents allows the courts to distribute some of the benefits beyond the literal scope of a claim to competitors by re-categorizing them as externalities; the limitation rules thus avoid complete consolidation of rights. By contrast, it seems a pity that Taiwan’s courts rarely comment on the legitimation basis of the doctrine of equivalents.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0001&detailNo=1401058877071429632&type=s越界建築與專利均等論