從美國暫時性禁制令看我國定暫時狀態之假處分--以專利侵權爭議為例

Abstract

基於種種制度上之因素,世界各國現均面臨民事訴訟耗時甚久之弊病,專利侵權訴訟案件亦復如此,嚴重影響權利人獲得應有的法律保障。然而,技術發展日新月異,全球營運的市場需求,使得競爭更加白熱化,為使專利權人能順利將其發明技術推出市場,獲得應有的合理利益,當其面臨市場上其他廠商侵權時,實需獲得迅速的救濟,方屬有實益的正義,因此,專利侵權之暫時性保護措施遂成為專利制度中一項值得研究之課題,此制度設計與運作之良善與否,將會大大影響專利權人的合法利益與市場上第三人之合法競爭。本文從觀察美國法院核發暫時性禁制令之實務運作中認為,其所設定之基本四要件:勝訴可能性、無法彌補之損害、利益衡平與公共利益,似可適當平衡專利權人與第三人間之利益,調和專利權保護與公平競爭(核發慎重性)之制度需求。並從比較法之觀點分析我國民事訴訟法就定暫時狀態假處分之相關規定與法院實務之運作情況,發現我國實務盛行的『願供擔保以代釋明』現象,相較於美國的嚴格標準,專利權人獲得暫時性保護的可能性很高,似有失之過寬而可能被濫用為打擊競爭對手之弊病。本文就此提出三點建議,供我國法界參考。

With the notorious delay of civil procedure and the increasing competition on the global market, patentees need prompt remedy to secure their legal interests. Therefore, the preliminary injunctive relief has become a critical issue in the patent protection system. First, by studying the American courts` practice of issuing the preliminary injunction, the author think that the four requirements- likelihood of success, irreparable injury, balance of hardship and public interest- are useful to strike the balance between the protection of patent and the fair competition (including the interests of the third party). Then, by analyzing the Taiwan civil procedure law and the practice of Taiwan courts governing the issuance of preliminary injunction, we found a big problem that our courts used to issue injunctive orders only upon the giving of security by the patentee. Compared to the practice of American ones, the preliminary injunction is likely to be misused in Taiwan. Finally, the author recommended three opinions to mitigate the problem.