1043月號 道 法 法 訊 (275)

DEEP & FAR

 

 

智慧財產法院應否革新、廢除或改名(十二)
 

蔡清福 律師

· 交大航技系輪機組畢業

· 輪機高考及格

· 輪機甲種特考及格

· 台大法律系畢業

· 律師高考及格

· 東吳法碩甲組碩士

· 創立道法法律事務所

 

 

例如,就某一爭點,法院固已許雙方表述,法官卻本於自由心證之誤解或高踞司法殿堂之尊
嚴,做出脫離事實、或竟超出雙方所主張事實之事實認定,此時,兩造除更加相信傳統所謂
[犯官符],以自解外,尚有何計?上訴或可得救,然亦可能僅係犯官符之某種救贖而已。前
曾提及,各()事務所可能以打贏訴訟為最高目標,說謊或扭曲僅為其策略運用,法官無清
明之心智或無雅量適度公開心證,讓其智慧或觀點接受檢驗,其判決結果僅只一場鬧劇,因
此轉而釀成本專欄初始指出重要廠商不再申請台灣專利結果,豈難想像?
再以權利金或損害賠償之計算為例,美國在Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood 
Corp.中,曾指出其考量因素有以下十五項:1. The royalties received by Georgia-Pacific for 
licensing the patent, proving or tending to prove an established royalty. 2. The rates paid by the 
licensee for the use of other similar patents. 3. The nature and scope of the license, such as whether 
it is exclusive or nonexclusive, restricted or nonrestricted in terms of territory or customers. 4. 
Georgia-Pacific’s policy of maintaining its patent monopoly by licensing the use of the invention 
only under special conditions designed to preserve the monopoly. 5. The commercial relationship 
between Georgia-Pacific and licensees, such as whether they are competitors in the same territory in 
the same line of business or whether they are inventor and promoter. 6. The effect of selling the 
patented specialty in promoting sales of other Georgia-Pacific products; the existing value of the 
invention to Georgia-Pacific as a generator of sales of nonpatented items; and the extent of such 
derivative or “convoyed” sales. 7. The duration of the patent and the term of the license. 8. The 
established profitability of the patented product, its commercial success and its current popularity. 
9. The utility and advantages of the patent property over any old modes or devices that had been 
used. 10. The nature of the patented invention, its character in the commercial embodiment owned 
and produced by the licensor, and the benefits to those who used it. 11. The extent to which the 
infringer used the invention and any evidence probative of the value of that use. 12. The portion of 
the profit or selling price that is customary in the particular business or in comparable businesses. 
13. The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished 
from any nonpatented elements, manufacturing process, business risks or significant features or 
improvements added by the infringer. 14. The opinion testimony of qualified experts. 15. The 
amount that Georgia-Pacific and a licensee would have agreed upon at the time the infringement 
began if they had reasonably and voluntarily tried to reach an agreement.

以上經典判決,並非無可改易,如在Microsoft v. Motorola breach of contract case案中,法官

Robart即以以下理由修改之 — “The parties in a hypothetical negotiation would set RAND

royalty rates by looking at the importance of the SEPs to the standard and the importance of the

standard and the SEPs to the products at issue.”而獲好評。然筆者舉本例,僅在凸顯一種思維、

或一種邏輯或思辨程序,即吾人欲為何種判斷或判決,並無可或不可,要在其必出於理、法

及情。就此一角度,筆者僅再舉三例以明之。其一,No doctrine of the patent law is better

established than that a prior patent or other publication to be an anticipation must bear within its

four corners adequate directions for the practice of the patent invalidated.  If the earlier disclosure

offers no more than a starting point for further experiments, if its teaching will sometimes succeed

and sometimes fail, if it does not inform the art without more how to practice the new invention, it

has not correspondingly enriched the store of common knowledge, and it is not an anticipation.”

Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. v. Mimex Co., 124 F.2d 986, 989 (2d Cir. 1942)此一案例中,法院

為如次前後兩段富含哲理之名言雋語,資為其邏輯思辯之過程:「No doctrine of the patent …

or the practice of the patent invalidated.」、及「If the earlier disclosure offers no more than a starting

point …, it has not correspondingly enriched the store of common knowledge, and it is not an

anticipation.”」則舉世為之瘋狂或傳頌,焉無理由?

其二,Citing a reference which merely indicates that isolated elements and/or features recited in the

claims are known is not a sufficient basis for concluding that the combination of claimed elements

would have been obvious.  That is to say, there should be something in the prior art or a

convincing line of reasoning in the answer suggesting the desirability of combining the references in

such a manner as to arrive at the claimed invention… Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ 2d, 1393, 1394

(Bd Pat. App. Inter, 1988)此一案例中,法院之名言雋語有「Citing a reference which merely

indicates that isolated elements and/or features recited in the claims are known is not a sufficient

basis for concluding that the combination of claimed elements would have been obvious.」、及「That

is to say, there should be something in the prior art or a convincing line of reasoning in the answer

suggesting the desirability of combining the references in such a manner as to arrive at the claimed

invention…」。

其三,自In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 1994)案例一出,"claims in

an application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the

specification."換言之,在此案前,撰寫請求項如不用功能手能( means plus function)言語,乃

不合格之代理者;然本案一出,撰寫請求項如出乎此,則非屬合格之數。其影響是解之深與

遠,乃若如斯。然歷史反動似無所不在,20142月,又出現In Enocean v. Facei一案,諭

示如下名言雋語「where the claims included a "signal receiver for receiving a first electromagnetic

signal transmitted by said first signal transmitter," the Federal Circuit determined that "receiver . . .

presumptively connotes sufficiently definite structure" to those skilled in the art.」、及「"just because

the disputed term is not limited to a single structure does not disqualify it as a corresponding

structure, as long as the class of structures is identifiable by a person of ordinary skill in the art."

綜上分析,對比於美國專利判決,我智慧法院判決幾乎毫無可觀、不值一顧。僅係存在而無

益於世間專利實務之發展,雖或可某程度解決本地專利糾紛,顯非鷹揚台灣或中國智慧或意

氣之道。揆其成因,法官養成過程很可能存有問題,致其深度專利侵權知識或微妙細節判斷

能力或經驗有所不足所使然。此外,因智慧法官皆係萬中選一,可能因自命甚高,致有超強

之自尊或自我主觀,遂生審判獨裁或剛愎心態問題,而未能景仰浩瀚知識或戒慎恐懼於專利

知識之可能不足、或在賦予科技事實專利法上意義之過程中,無知或無感於奈米時代中,

「差之奈米,失之萬里」之可能偏差,致遺憾頻仍。