由比較法觀點論我國專利保險之定位

Abstract

本文主要係由比較的觀點，分析比較美國、歐盟、中國大陸與澳洲關於專利保險的架構與定位，以為臺灣的專利保險設計提出建議。雖然中國大陸與歐盟有鼓勵專利保險之政策或討論，但仍未以強制保險推動專利保險。歐盟即使經過多年討論，仍未達成採行強制保險之共識。而中國大陸係以補貼保費等政策鼓勵方式推動專利保險，故亦非強制保險模式；且在面對諸多實際困難之情況下，更有過於依賴政府力量之隱憂。相對的，美國與澳洲主要仍依循任意保險之架構。對臺灣而言，在中小企業專利訴訟風險不盡相同且費率不易計算之情形下，不論是完全的強制保險架構，或是如大陸給予一定額度之補貼，都需要更為謹慎的計算與考慮。就現階段而言，除了強制保險不適合臺灣以外，政策性之補貼亦應宜謹慎。

This article analyzes the framework of patent insurance in the U.S., the EU, China, and Australia with comparative law perspectives, and then provides suggestions for Taiwan’s patent insurance system. Even though China and the EU have policies and proposals to promote patent insurance, it is not regulated patent insurance as mandatory insurance. The EU does not achieve the consensus of mandatory insurance after long time discussions. China promotes patent insurance by compensating premium instead of regulating as mandatory insurance. This approach is still criticized for an over-reliance on government’s intervention because of its practical difficulties. In contrast, the U.S. and Australia mainly follow the non-mandatory insurance framework for their patent insurance. For Taiwan, under the circumstances that patent litigation risks of small and medium size enterprises are generally different and insurance rates are difficult to estimate, more serious considerations are required not only for the mandatory insurance structure but also for compensating scheme like China. Currently, this research does not recommend a mandatory insurance structure for patent insurance for Taiwan, and any compensating scheme should be more cautiously considered.