美國337條款國內產業要件之經濟要件：以專利授權實質投資為中心

STUDY OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 337 INVESTIGATIONS-FOCUSING ON SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN PATENT LICENSING

向美國國際貿易委員會（International Trade Commission，ITC）聲請337條款調查，聲請人須證明在美國有系爭專利之產業存在或正被建立中，亦即「國內產業要件」。只要符合19U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(A)至(C)三款其中之一，聲請人即可滿足國內產業要件。實務上，國內產業要件包括經濟要件與技術要件，而符合該三款其中之一所規範之經濟活動，即滿足經濟要件。本文探討美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院（Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit，CAFC）關於經濟要件中「實質投資於系爭專利之授權」之適用，包含John Mezzalingua Assocs. v. ITC、InterDigital Communications, LLC v. ITC及Motiva, LLC, v. ITC等案。實務上，ITC早已利用(A)、(B)款兩類經濟活動以檢視國內產業要件是否構成，然而，無論是(A)款或(B)款，均與系爭專利是否在美國有生產活動有關，對於在美國無生產活動之權利人而言，此要件不免過於嚴苛。直至1988年修法新增(C)款經濟活動後，救濟對象不再僅限於美國從事生產系爭專利物品之權利人，而擴大至於美國非從事生產，惟有實質投資於系爭專利之利用之權利人，放寬了國內產業要件之門檻。近來判決顯示CAFC於判斷國內產業要件之經濟要件時趨於嚴格。根據19U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(C)主張實質投資於系爭專利之授權以滿足主張國內產業要件時，必須證明實質投資與「與受專利保護之物品有關」，即須滿足「物品要件（articles requirement）」，如證明有受系爭專利保護之物品存在，但專利產品是否在國內生產則非所問。以專利侵權訴訟費用主張實質投資於系爭專利之授權之聲請人，其訴訟目的須為「促進授權」而非「禁止生產」，始能滿足國內產業要件。專利侵權訴訟促成之授權協議，其性質為「生產導向」將獲得較高評價，若為「收益導向」則評價較低。

Section 337 investigations by the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) requires that the complainant demonstrates the existence of an industry in the United States or that such an industry is in the process of being established, i.e., the domestic industry requirement. The domestic industry requirement consists of an economic prong and a technical prong. The economic prong is satisfied by meeting the criteria of any of the three subsections listed in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(A)-(C). This research studies the fulfillment of the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement by focusing on the recent judicial applications of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(C) at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), including Mezzalingua Assocs. v. ITC, InterDigital Communications, LLC v. ITC and Motiva, LLC v. ITC. These cases are related to the issue of ＂substantial investment in exploitation of the patent through licensing.＂ In early ITC determinations, the subsections (A) and (B) in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3) have been relied on in finding the existence of a domestic industry. However, these two subsections require actual production of the article in the Unites States. In 1988, Congress relaxed the domestic industry requirement to include certain non-manufacturing activities by adding the third factor that now found in subsection (C). The recent CAFC rulings illustrate the application of economic prong has tended to be rigid. Establishing licensing-based domestic industry under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(C), one must prove that substantial investment is related to the article protect by the asserted patent, i.e., the ＂articles requirement;＂ it does not require that the article protected by the patent be made in the US. While a complainant shows the substantial investment in the exploitation of the patent based on a patent infringement litigation, the purpose of the litigation must be related to ＂licensing,＂ but not for permanent injunction. Moreover, to claim the litigation is a means to urge a license agreement, the merit of the license agreement must be ＂production-driven.＂