美國著作權律師費用賠償制度之發展與我國之反思

The Development of Attorney’s Fee in Copyright Litigation in the U.S. and Some Reflection on Taiwan

美國著作權法第505條規定，法院可以判予勝訴方合理律師費用，作為其成本之一部分，亦即可判賠勝訴方合理律師費用。但美國法院最早採取雙重模式，直到美國最高法院於1994年的Fogery v. Fantasy 案，改採公平模式，亦即承認雙向的律師費用賠償，並對著作權法第505條的適用，提出了重要標準。但各巡迴上訴法院對於地區法院決定判賠律師費用行使裁量權時，仍採取不同標準。因此，2016年美國聯邦最高法院受理並做出John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng案判決，對著作權訴訟敗訴方何時須賠償律師費用問題，做出最新見解。其認為在考量是否判賠律師費用時，應對於敗訴方主張之客觀合理性給理予相當份量，但強調地區法院仍應參考其他因素，做出適當裁量。其次本文比較國際條約之規定，尤其是TRIPs與TPP與律師費用賠償有關之規定，並檢討臺灣制度與法院判決。最後提出具體建議。

Section 505 of the U.S. Copyright Act provides, the court may award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs. Originally, the courts adopted a dual approach, until Supreme Court’s 1994 opinion in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. changed to the evenhanded approach, holding that “prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants are to be treated alike.” Nevertheless, after the Fogerty v. Fantasy, circuit courts adopted different approach in awarding attorney’s fee. In 2016, Supreme Court in John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng come back this issue and affirm the Second Circuit’s approach, saying that the District Court should continue to give substantial weight to the reasonableness of Wiley’s position but also take into account all other relevant factors. This Article will compare some important international treaties, especially the provisions about attorney’s fee in TRIPs and TPP. Then the laws and court decisions about attorney’s fees in intellectual property cases in Taiwan will be discussed. Finally, some amendments suggestion will be proposed.