美國專利訴訟之域外取證及證據審理模式

A Study of Evidential Regulations in American Patent Litigation and Exterritorial Discovery Thereof

我國企業有面臨美國相對人逕自進行「域外取證」之情事，其乃因在Aerospatiale案後，海牙域外取證公約被解釋為非強制規定，故得依其內國聯邦民事訴訟法上之證據開示對我國企業進行域外取證，若拒不配合將可能遭至訴訟之不利益，加以我國企業基於維持對美貿易考量，而不得不屈從之。當域外取證致國人進入美國司法程序時，將發現大陸法系與英美法系在證據規範上有顯著差異，因此，是否精準掌握美國民事訴訟程序之證據法則對專利案件之規範，將關乎勝敗之訴訟結果。我國專利權之解釋尚未辯明周邊限定主義之真義，仍陷於折衷主義之迷思，此將於美國馬克曼聽證會時，易致誤判美國專利法理之不利益。在專利案件中，事實問題與法律問題之區別是複雜的，我國因為無陪審團，並無區分意義，但應瞭解在此議題上美國法官如何對其進行指導，以及陪審團及法官之技術背景議題。美國Microsoft案對於專利訴訟有效性抗辯之判決，確認證明度提高至「明確且具說服力」，相較之下，我國專利法制顯然無此細緻之制度。對照該案，我國所欠缺者並非僅無「證明度升高或降低」之機制而已，尚包括主觀舉證責任及客觀舉證責任定義、舉證責任分配、在推定情況下之舉證責任轉換或重新分配；及藉證明度調整自由心證空間之規定等，建議我國應對此等議題多做研析，並儘早制定專利相關法規。

After the Aerospatiale, the American companies can directly conduct discovery by following its Federal Rule of Civil Procedure to our local industries for taking evidence, without via routes of Hague Evidence Convention or any diplomatic channel. It is therefore inevitable to confront the US discovery system in general, and rule of evidence in particular in a patent dispute. And, we shall clarify certain misunderstanding such that a winning suit can be reasonably expected. For example, the doctrine of peripheral limitation is the correct method to interpret the claim of a patent at a Markman hearing. There is a need to distinguish matters of law and fact because the jury is the trier of fact in US judicial system. In view of the Microsoft, where the standard of proof was heightened to be “clear and convincing evidence”, we shall consider that an overhaul of our evidence system may be needed. Indeed, we shall managing to provide a clearer definition of burden of proof, better rule of allocation and shift of burden of proof, and establishment of various standards of proof, such that a more effective evidence system can be formed.