維修免責條款立法之應有思維：從歐盟現況談起

我國近來關於是否於專利法中新增設計專利之維修免責條款，引發激烈討論，正反意見皆擲地有聲。支持者往往多半借鏡歐洲立法與論證，認為歐盟的6/2002設計規則第110條過渡條文、 98/71/EC設計指令第14條過渡條文，及部分歐洲國家如2020年底新修正通過之德國立法例或2021年8月之法國立法例皆有維修免責條款，就是支持的明證。然而，歐盟對於是否納入設計權限制事由之維修條款，歷經十數年討論，不論是歐盟或是各國之立法脈絡皆有脈絡可循，其中並經過充分研究並擬定相當配套措施，至今未有定論及統一見解。因此本文以下先就歐盟維修免責條款立法考量與折衝進行剖析。接著以汽車產業大國法國為例，解析為何數度嘗試立法，最終迎來一個極為限縮的妥協版本。其後，評析歐洲法院關於歐盟設計規則維修免責條款之判決，尋思論理基礎，並分析於該判決中所確立之適用要件，是否對內國法院產生之影響及內國法院所有之堅持。最後，針對我國立法院提案修正專利法第136條增列維修免責條款，提出可能產生之盲點與衝突，並從立法論切入，探討值得進一步全面思考之處。

After the ruling of Daimler AG sued Taiwanese vehicle headlamp manufacturer DEPO was issued by Taiwan IP Court in 2017, certain legislators proposed the introduction of a repair clause on 24 April 2020 to the Legislative Yuan. The very controversial proposed amendment to Article 136 of Patent Act states that “the effect of a design patent right shall not extend to where the parts are applied in restoring the original appearance of a car or a vehicle for a maintenance purpose”. The stakeholders who support repair clause argues that the adoption by Directive 98/71/EC a provision exempting certain spare parts from design protection is a clear evidence that the patent rights acquired for the appearance of auto parts after being protected should not be improperly extended to the after market. However, the EU has been discussing for more than ten years of the inclusion of the repair clause on design rights limitation. Whether in the EU or the national legislation, there exist a complete context with comprehensive legal and economic research and supporting measures together with the legal provions. This article first analyzes the legislative considerations and compromises of the EU repair clause. Then, taking France as an example to explore its challenging legislation history. This article investigates as well the judgment of the European Court of Justice on the repair clause of the EU design rights. It further looks into the cases’ rationale and their influence toward national courts. Finally, in response to the proposed legislators’ edition amendment of Article 136 of Patent Law, the author criticize the rough drafting provisions and request Taiwanese Legislators and authorities should carefully consider the pros and cons of repair clauses when making a final decision.