專利到期後續收權利金條款有效性探討

A STUDY ON THE LEGALITY OF ROYALTY COLLECTION CLAUSE AFTER EXPIRATION OF PATENT RIGHTS

關於專利權屆滿後，專利權人如與被授權人約定繼續收取權利金者，其約定是否有效，向來即為實務界相當關注的問題。有認為專利是國家給予的獨占權利，獨占期間既已屆滿，當不得以契約約定變相加以延長，否則即為權利濫用而有不公平競爭之嫌；另一方面，有人主張准許專利權人以契約方式延長權利金得收取時間，其實對被授權人有益，因為被授權人得以慢慢給付權利金，避免於短時間內給付大量的權利金，實際上反而有助於創新。關於此一問題美國聯邦最高法院一向採取前者的見解，認為不得以契約延長權利金得收取期間，然此見解飽受各方討論與批評。最近最高法院在Kimble v. Marvel 乙案中，重新檢視此一問題，雖然認為其先前所持見解容有可議之處，然最後卻援引判決並須遵守原則 (stare decisis) ，以並無特殊正當理由推翻其先前見解而予以維持，留待日後國會立法處理。因此此項爭論問題尚未塵埃落定，有待未來美國的立法與司法單位進一步的釐清與處理。本文以為以契約延長權利金收取期間，對創新與經濟效益之影響，有利有弊，未可一概而論，因此以合理原則判斷應是正確的作法。本文並比較美國法之見解與國內公平交易委員會見解之異同，並提出建議。

Whether a contract clause to permit patent owner continuously collect royalty payment from licensee after the expiration of its patent rights permissible is a highly controversial issue in practice. Some believe that since the patent rights is a kind of monopoly granted by government, it shall not be extended after expiration; otherwise, it shall be regarded as patent misuse and/ or unfair competition as the case may be. Nonetheless, others believe that such kind of clause is actually beneficial to licensee because licensee is allowed to make royalty payment throughout the whole patent term and even after expiration, which is helpful in terms of innovation. Regarding such debate, the Supreme Court of the United States adopts the view of the former, strongly opposes to collecting royalties after patent expiration. Recently in Kimble v. Marvel, the Supreme Court reviews this issue all over again. The Supreme Court of the United States adopts the view of the former, strongly opposes to collecting royalties after patent expiration. Recently in Kimble v. Marvel, the Supreme Court reviews this issue all over again. The Supreme Court believes that although its former judgment might have certain flaws; however, there is no special justifiable reasons to correct such former judgment, and according to stare decisisdoctrine, a court must abide by its former judgment in order to maintain the reliability of judicial decisions. The Supreme Court remains such issues to the hand of the Congress, waiting for future amendment to the law. Hence, this issue has not yet being settled, and needs further clarification of the judicial and legislative branches of the United States. The author believes that such clause might be simultaneously good and bad to innovation and economic efficiency depending upon the circumstances, and therefore, it is a right approach to examine such clause based on ＂rule of reason＂ principle. The author offers suggestions regarding this issue after comparing different views and approaches adopted by the relevant authorities of the US and Taiwan.