不當行使新型專利權之損害賠償責任與免責條件

Liability for Damages and Exemption Conditions for Improper Exercise of Utility-Model Patent Rights

民國92年修正專利法時，立法者將新型專利之審查從實體審查簡化為形式審查，而為了避免新型專利權人不當行使有效性尚不確定的新型專利權，立法者另於當年專利法第105條中針對新型專利權人因不當行使新型專利權而致他人受損害之賠償責任以及免責條件設有規範。隨後，在民國100年專利法修法時，立法者於專利法第117條中將免責條件從「如係基於新型專利技術報告之內容或已盡相當注意而行使權利者，推定為無過失。」修正為「但其係基於新型專利技術報告之內容，且已盡相當之注意者，不在此限。」然而，本文認為無論是民國92年專利法第105條還是民國100年專利法第117條之內容，在法條結構設計上均不甚周全，以至於無法在「不當行使新型專利權之損害賠償責任」與「免責條件」之間清楚地劃下一道適當的界線，亦未能設立一個可操作且具備彈性的免責評估標準。另外，本文認為新型專利權是否被撤銷與系爭法條之目的無關，還不必要地提升了請求損害賠償的門檻，應有進一步斟酌其必要性之必要。有鑑於此，本文嘗試針對「不當行使新型專利權之損害賠償責任」與「免責條件」進行解析及研究，並提出相關建議。

In the amendments to the Patent Act promulgated in 2003, legislators simplified the examination of Utility-Model Patent from substantive examination to formal examination, and in order to prevent patentees from improperly exercising of the Utility-Model Patent rights, they also stipulated in Article 105 of the Patent Act the liability and exemption for damages caused to others by the patentees’actions of improperly exercising rights. Afterwards, in the amendments to the Patent Act promulgated in 2011, legislators moved Article 105 into Article 117 and revised the exemption condition from“patentees is presumed not to be negligent if they exercise Utility-Model Patent rights based on Technical Evaluation Report for Utility-Model Patent or with due care”to“patentees have no liability for damages if they exercise Utility-Model Patent rights based on Technical Evaluation Report for Utility-Model Patent and with due care.”However, this article expresses that neither Article 105 nor Article 117 is comprehensive in terms of structure design, so that it is hard to clarify the boundary between“Liability for Damages”and“Exemption Conditions,”and thus cannot establish an operable and flexible standard for exemption evaluation. In addition, the article expresses that it is worth reconsidering the requirement of revoking Utility-Model Patent because success or failure of revoking Utility-Model Patent is immaterial to the aim of the provisions at issue and it unnecessarily raises the threshold of claiming damages. In view of this, the article attempts to analyze and study the provisions at issue in terms of“Liability for Damages”and“Exemption Conditions,”and puts forward some suggestions.