新型專利權之行使與競爭秩序－－以智慧財產法院105年度民專上字第30號民事判決為例

The Exercise of the Utility Model Patent and Competition: Taking Intellectual Property Court 105 Min Zhuang Shang Zi No. 30 Civil Judgment for Example

臺灣之新型專利自2004年7月起已改為形式審查，不再為實體審查，但為防範新型專利權人濫用其權利，另輔以新型專利技術報告制度。本文以智慧財產法院105年度民專上字第30號民事判決為基礎，並彙整相關案例，主張智慧財產法院面臨新型專利權人行使權利時，仍宜恪守專利法第116條、117條強化新型專利技術報告於新型專利權人行使權利時之地位的文義與意旨，以符合專利法第116條、117條在合理範圍內控管新型專利權人濫用權利之目的。若新型專利權人未提示新型專利技術報告或高或相當於新型專利技術報告客觀性之佐證資料，例如經法院一審判決認定有效之新型專利權遭受侵害，難認為新型專利權人對其新型專利之可專利性享有正當確信。新型專利權人為警告，亦屬行使新型專利權之一環，違反第116條之法律效果，應依第117條定之。而公平會亦宜依專利法第116條、117條規定，修正「公平交易委員會對於事業發侵害著作權、商標權或專利權警告函案件之處理原則」，將新型專利排除適用該原則第3點第1項第3款（已取得專業機構鑑定之鑑定報告且發函前事先或同時為排除侵害通知）以及第4點（發函前事先或同時為排除侵害通知與警告函明確揭露資訊）。

Since July, 2004, any patent application for utility model has only undergone formality examination and not been reviewed substantively for its patentability. The system of formality examination for each utility model patent is supplemented by requesting the patentee thereof to present corresponding technical reports under the Patent Act. This article, based upon Intellectual Property Court 105 Min Zhuang Shang Zi No.30 Civil Judgment and the related cases, asserts that Intellectual Property Court shall adjudicate the cases related to a patentee’s exercising its utility model patent strictly under Article 116 and 117 of the Patent Act to strengthen the importance of a technical report in the exercise of each utility model patent and to prevent the abuse thereof. In the event that an utility model patent holder does not present the corresponding technical report, or supporting material whose objectivity is equivalent to or higher than the technical report, such as the first instance judgment confirming the validity of and infringement on the utility model patent, the patentee shall not be considered having legitimate belief in the patentability thereof. Since an utility model patent holder’s making a warning is an act of exercising the utility model patent, the liability for such holder’s violating Article 116 of the Patent Act shall be determined in accordance with Article 117 thereof. It is suggested that Taiwan Fair Trade Commission amend Article 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 of “Fair Trade Commission Disposal Directions (Guidelines) on Warning Letters issued by Enterprises Arguing Copyright, Trademark, or Patent Infringement” to exclude utility model patents, so that holders thereof could not evade the restrictions imposed by Article 116 and 117 of the Patent Act by obtaining infringement analysis reports from professional institutions and issuing warning letters with simultaneous or prior notices of preventing infringement, or issuing warning letters with disclosure of required information and simultaneous or prior notices of preventing infringement.