智慧財產權證券化之研究

The Study on Securitization of Intellectual Property Rights

系所名稱：智慧財產研究所
學位別：碩士
畢業學年：93年
指導教授：劉江彬
從智慧財產權的加值過程觀之，可以分為創造、保護、管理與運用四個階段，其中運用為發揮智財權附加價值的唯一手段。因此，如何為智財權尋求新的運用管道應是智財權利人與政府最須關心的議題。參考國外經驗，現今智財權運用的策略與模式已相當多元，除了運用於企業經營以發揮其策略性營運價值外，近年來亦興起以智財權進行擔保交易之趨勢，藉此開創智財權的財務價值。
而在擔保交易中，智財權除可進行融資擔保，實現其擔保價值外，於1997年知名歌手David Bowie以其音樂著作權為證券化資產，成功發行Bowie Bonds後，亦證明以智財權進行證券化交易的可行性，使得證券化成為另一股智財權運用的新趨勢。而孕育Bowie Bonds誕生的美國，也成為智財權證券化的始祖與交易數量最多的市場。透過證券化技術之橋接，擁有智財權的企業或個人將可藉此與資本市場產生新的連結，為其提供傳統銀行貸款外的新融資管道，增加智財權的價值。本研究之目的即在於瞭解美國智財權證券化之發展經驗，藉由實際案例之介紹，研究其運作模式、困難與未來前景，提供各界參考，並分析在我國推動智財權證券化的可行性。
研究結果發現符合一定條件的智財權，不論是專利權、商標權、音樂著作權或是電影著作權均可以進行證券化，且在交易架構上，智財權證券化完全可以運用發展已相當成熟的證券化技術，且未超脫此架構。其仍由智財權利人將欲進行證券化的智財權及相關權益以真實買賣的方式移轉給特殊目的機構，並於架構所需的信用增強機制後，發行經信用評等機構評等的證券，在證券承銷商的協助下銷售給投資人。其所運用的信用增強方式包括超額擔保、儲備基金帳戶、信用分組、第三人保險或保證、於循環期內新購資產及設定提前清償機制等等，均為傳統證券化交易中常見者。而這些交易的共通點是其證券均經信用評等，且均以私募方式進行銷售，而不採公開發行。
此外，美國市場經過多年發展，可以觀察到四點有利智財權證券化發展的趨勢：一、鑑價技術進步與重視創新管理，帶動市場發展。二、以資產組合的方式進行證券化。三、證券化擴張到新種類的智財權。四、取得專家協助容易。且許多證券業的專家相信，因為智財權將成為全世界大部分收益與現金流量的來源，且證券化交易對買賣雙方都有好處，其未來將會成為最大的證券化資產種類。
然而，智財權的特性與固有的價值影響因素，將增加其進行證券化的困難度與複雜性。此外，基於外在配套機制、產業環境與企業文化等種種因素，智財權證券化的發展面臨以下難題，包括智財鑑價技術未成熟、智財侵權普遍（特別是影音盜版、電腦軟體盜版與商標仿冒）、因智財權複雜性與高風險所導致的高交易成本、智財權擔保法制不完整、現有授權契約支付結構不利證券化、組織與需求問題、欠缺次級市場、投資人對智財權不熟悉及破產風險不易隔離等。
就我國而言，筆者認為似可以適用金融資產證券化條例之規定，進行智財權權利金收益之證券化。此外，在我國要以智財權本身進行證券化，似也可行。因為依信託業法第十六條之規定，信託業可以經營金錢債權及專利權、著作權及商標權之信託。故智財權利人可依該法之規定將智財權本身連同其相關權利金收益一併信託給信託業者，由其發行表彰受益權之憑證來進行證券化。但除非該證券另經財政部核定為證券交易法第六條第一項之其他有價證券，該證券將不適用證券交易法之規定，故其性質應屬民法第七百十九條所規定之無記名證券。
再者，因在我國民法下尚不承認『尚未產生債權』之讓與，故無法如美國進行『尚未產生的未來現金流量』的智財權證券化交易，只能以既有授權契約下的權利金收益為之。此外，根據我國法院對將來債權轉讓，以該債權發生時為讓與生效時點之見解，似無法隔離創始機構的破產風險。且在我國破產法下，破產管理人原則上也有承擔或拒絕授權契約的權利，但該法未如美國『智慧財產破產保護法案』般，賦予被授權人選擇保留授權契約之權利而須繼續支付權利金，故當破產管理人拒絕該授權契約時，對證券化交易之衝擊並無挽救之道。而在智財權擔保權益上，專利權與商標權雖已有登記對抗之公示機制，但筆者認為仍有缺憾。更嚴重者為著作財產權設定質權及讓與均不須經登記，且因著作權為無體財產，若無任何公示機制，對於交易安全之維護實屬有害，亦不利著作權證券化之進行。也許有人會質疑，我國連不動產與金融資產證券化的發展均未成熟，現在就要談發展智慧財產證券化似嫌過早。然而，在美國已有不少成功案例證實其可行性，且日本於2002年底通過《智慧財產權基本法》，確立以智慧財產權立國的國家戰略後，對智慧財產權證券化之研究也日益蓬勃。因此，筆者認為為增加發揮智慧財產權附加價值之管道，讓權利人更能從智慧財產權中獲益，即使我國資產證券化之市場仍屬初期發展階段，政府仍須認真思考此議題，進而考慮儘速推動基礎法制及相關配套措施，並解決前述的法律問題，以期建構有利發展智慧財產權證券化之環境，方不致在此新領域上落後美、日兩國太多。此外，若能成功推展此種新興的金融商品，相信對我國金融市場的效率提昇與國際知名度亦有助益。基此，筆者分就智財權利人與我國政府兩個面項，提出十二點有利智財權證券化發展之建議，作為本研究之最終成果。壹、對智財權利人的建議一、做好智財管理，創造優質權利。二、管理授權契約，設計支付架構。三、事先安排智財權清算機制。四、善用信用分組，吸引不同偏好的投資人。五、由智財技術服務業者擔任服務機構，以增加專業性，並降低破產風險。貳、對我國政府的建議一、增加金融資產證券化條例適用之資產種類。二、承認尚未存在之將來債權讓與交易。三、修改破產法，增定真實買賣安全港與被授權人選擇權。四、修改智財權法交易登記規定，包括增設著作權交易登記制度，及將登記對抗改為登記生效要件。五、建立智財權鑑價市場秩序，提高鑑價結果可信度。六、建立信用保證機制。七、建立資產證券化資產公告之查詢系統。

The value chain of intellectual property rights (IPRs) can be separated into innovation, protection, management and utilization. Utilization is the only way to extract the value of IPRs. Therefore, how to find out the new utilization conduit is the most important concern of IPR owners. Nowadays, the strategies and ways of utilizing IPRs are diverse. In addition to combining IPRs with the business operation, it can be used as collateral to extract its financial value. Besides secured lending, IPRs has been proved suitable as securitizing asset when David Bowie successfully closed a music royalty securitization in 1997. From then, securitization has become a new trend to utilize IPRs and USA has become the market with most transactions of IPRs securitization.By securitization, IPR owners can get a new linkage with the capital market, providing a new way to raise money. This increases the value of IPRs. The aim of the study is to understand the experience of IPR securitization in USA. We introduce the real cases and analyze their processes, hard issues, future prospects, and feasibility in Taiwan.We conclude that any eligible IPRs, including patent, trademark, and music, films can be securitized and IPR securitization use exactly the same techniques of asset securitization. It begins with IPR owner, originator, transferring the IPRs and related royalty interests to a special purpose vehicle, then structuring necessary credit enhancement (like over-collateralization, reserve funds, credit tranching, third party guarantee or insurance, revolving period, triggered amortization and so on), then getting a credit rating by a rating agency, and issuing IP-backed securities to investors through a underwriter. Private placement of securities is in common in all existing USA cases so that their public transaction information is very limited.After development of several years, we have observed four favorable trends in American market, including improvement of IPR valuation and innovation management, the use of pooling of assets, expansion of asset classes from music to trademark and patent, easiness to get the service from financial, legal, accounting and tax professionals. Because of IPRs gradually becoming the largest source of cash flow in the world and advantages to all transaction parties, many financial experts believe IPRs will be the most securitizing assets.However, as result of the characteristics and the inherent value challenges of IPRs, structuring IPR securitization has many difficulties and increasing complexities. Furthermore, because of lacking other supporting functions, IPR securitization faces many holding back forces, including immaturity of IPR valuation, rampant IPR infringements, especially music, video, software piracies and trademark counterfeits, high costs, incompleteness of IPR security interest law, unfavorable payment term of existing licensing contracts, lack of efficient secondary market of IP-backed securities, unfamiliarity of investors about IPR.As for Taiwan, we think IPR owners can only securitize his royalty interests of IPR, but not IPR itself by application of Financial Assets Securitization Act. Otherwise, they can securitize IPR and related rights by application of Trust Business Act, but without the decision of Ministry of Finance, the beneficial interests of trust can not be regard as securities. Moreover, that Taiwan does not recognize the transference of executory future cash flow in Civil Law results in non-separateness of IPR owner’s insolvency risk. And our licensees have no right to retain the use of IPRs licensed when receiver rejects the licensing agreement in Bankruptcy Act. Finally, transaction parties need no registration when engaging in secured transaction or transference of copyright in Taiwan. It does harm to other parties in interest and is unfavorable to copyright securitization.Maybe someone will doubt that it is too early to develop the IPR securitization in the initial stage of asset securitization in Taiwan. But, according to the successful experience of USA and the eagerness to develop IPR securitization of Japan, we suggest our government shall consider it seriously and construct fundamental legal structure and other supporting functions to help our IPR owners to extract more value from their IP assets. If the new financial product can be successfully developed, it can do a lot of good to Taiwan financial market. Therefore, we set forth twelve opinions of smoothly developing IPR securitization in Taiwan. IPR owners should1. Practice good IP management to create IPRs with good quality.2. Manage licensing agreements and design favorable payment terms.3. Arrange in advance the liquidation of IPR.4. Use credit tranching to meet the different investment needs of investors.5. Retain an IP professional service provider to serve as servicer to lessen the insolvency risk.Our government should1. Increase qualified asset classes of Financial Asset Securitization Act to include IPRs.2. Recognize the transference of executory future cash flow to promote secured transaction and IPR securitization of that kind.3. Amend true sale safe harbor and licensee’s right to retain the use of IPR licensed in Bankruptcy Act.4. Revise the regulation of registration in IPR secured transaction such as addition of the requirement of registration in copyright transaction.5. Establish the order of IP valuation market to elevate the credibility of valuation results. 6. Set up the function of credit guarantee in IPR securitization.7. Build up the electronic data base of asset securitization including IPR securitization.