美國專利間接侵權實務對我國專利法修正導入間接侵權之啟示

Abstract

專利間接侵權是專利侵權訴訟的一項重要議題，經濟部智慧財產局於專利法修正草案中，研擬將間接侵權制度導入，所設計之條文較為接近美國專利法。\\r 美國專利法之間接侵權是指35 U.S.C. § 217第（b）項及第（c）項，第（b）項是教唆侵權，第（c）項是幫助侵權。有關教唆侵權，本文分析美國最高法院判例，以及五件聯邦巡迴上訴法院之判決；有關幫助侵權，本文分析三件具代表性的判決。判決之研析，可瞭解實務上何種行為會被法院評價為落入專利間接侵權。本文期能提供我國未來對專利間接侵權能有更深之瞭解。 本文分析顯示，美國專利法有關間接侵權之規定雖較為抽象，但有實務判決之輔助，公眾較能瞭解間接侵權所欲規範之範圍。我國在欠缺實務判決之情況下，須將條文設計更為具體化，方能消除公眾對新制度之疑慮。

Patent indirect infringement is an important topic in patent litigation. Intellectual Property Office, MOEA has introduced the indirect infringement to an article of the amended Patent Act. This new article is similar to the U.S. Patent Act,271. There are two kinds of indirect infringement in the Patent Act of the U.S., active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 217 （b）and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 217 （c）. Two precedents of the Supreme Court and five decisions of the CAFC regard to contributory infringement were studied here, and three representative decisions regard to induced infringement . By these real cases, it is helpful to understand what kind of conducts are not permissible and will be judged as indirect infringement. In the case study, people could catch the scope what the 35 U.S.C. § 217 （b）（c）defined even the paragraphs are not easy to make clear. The cases also give the notice to us how to draft a clear article in our Patent Act.