專利權侵害與不當得利──以最高法院106年度臺上字第2467號民事判決為具體分析對象

Patent Infringement and Unjust Enrichment: Taking Civil Judgement 2017 Tai Shang Zi No. 2467 of Supreme Court as an Analytical Object

本文從不當得利類型論出發，說明在該理論強調應依據各種不同法領域的規範特性及目的，以不當得利規定調整其財貨歸屬狀態的基本規範理念下，專利權侵害之不當得利其應返還利益範圍的確定，應就「不當」及「得利」二階段，加以判斷。於第一階段中，確認專利權之歸屬，非專利權人等所為專利技術的實施，即違反法秩序所預定之權利歸屬內容，而構成「不當」得利、同時造成專利權人之損害。其次，於第二階段中，探討侵權人所受「利益」範圍，此際若將其所受利益僅限定於合理權利金，不僅可能混同專利權及其權利行使二者間之手段與目的關係，且亦可能與損害賠償之所失利益的合理權利金，相互混淆。本文最後並以最高法院106年度臺上字第2467號民事判決之具體事實為例，說明應如何將上述主張適用於具體案例中，以得出妥當之結果。

This article starts from the theory of unjust enrichment categories, explaining that based on the theory’s basic normative concept—the state of property attribution should be adjusted according to regulatory characteristics and purposes of each legal field through unjust enrichment regulations—the scope of unjust enrichment of patent infringement should be determined in two stages, namely“unjust”and“enrichment”. In the first stage, it should be confirmed that the vesting of the patent right and the implementation of the patented technology by the non-patent holder violate the predetermined content of the attribution of rights by the legal order, constitute“unjust”gains, and cause damage to the patentee. In the second stage, the scope of the“benefits”received by the infringer should be explored. If the said scope is only limited to reasonable royalties at this stage, it may not only be confused with the relationship between the means and the purpose of the patent and the exercise of the rights but also with the reasonable royalties of the lost benefits of the damages. Furthermore, it is more likely that the patent right, originally an almost absolute exclusive right, will be downgraded or drafted into a right to claim compensation for similar compulsory licensing, thus eliminating the normative principle of infringement of rights and interests. However, when the court restricts the scope of unjust enrichment to reasonable royalties based on practical requirements, the calculation of the reasonable royalties should be done by using the“hypothetical negotiation method”faithfully. Finally, this article uses the specific facts of the Supreme Court’s civil judgment to illustrate how the above propositions can be applied to specific cases in order to reach an appropriate result.