活動內容

承襲大陸法系的傳統，臺灣專利侵權及有效性爭議自1950年代以來均係以雙軌制運行。詳言之，智慧局專責審理專利有效性爭議，不服智慧局處分者係上訴至行政法院，而非民事法院；另一方面，民事法院則專責審理侵權爭議，無從過問專利有效性。

2008年時，臺灣革新前述做法。依智慧財產案件審理法，當時新成立之智慧財產法院（嗣後改制為智慧財產及商業法院）同時享有專利侵權及有效性爭議之管轄權；據此，民事法院法官首次得在同一程序中審理申請專利範圍解釋、有效性及侵權等爭議，此無疑係相當大幅之突破。然而，當時專利舉發程序仍維持由智慧局專責審理，惟改由智慧財產及商業法院作為司法審理機關。此等修正後的雙軌制自2008年迄今雖運作得宜，不過重要的規劃仍持續進行中。

過去15年間，如何強化技術爭議審理之正當程序，以確保當事人在法院及智慧局審理過程之程序上權利，一直以來均為廣泛討論的議題。在現行的法院程序中，法院技術審查官雖相當程度地協助法官進行審理，不過技術審查官與法官間的溝通並無需揭露予訴訟當事人，此部分的改革一直係大眾關注的焦點。在智慧局的程序中，則不乏借鏡美國技術法官以調整臺灣審查官角色之建言，以促使舉發程序仿照法院審理模式進行。經過過去數年努力，立法院將陸續審理專利法及智慧財產案件審理法等修法草案，並預期將於2023年通過並施行。

關於上開修正草案之相關子法，法院及智慧局目前均積極研擬中。於此之際，藉由本次研討會，我們期待借鏡美國、德國、日本等國家之法院與專利局證據蒐集及技術爭議審理的經驗，以建構臺灣模式。

Following the civil law tradition, in Taiwan, patent infringement trial and invalidation review had been always processed in two different tracks since the 1950's. It was the situation where the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office ("TIPO") had the exclusive jurisdiction over patent invalidation issue and one who failed before the TIPO may appeal to an administrative court, not a civil court. And the civil court having the jurisdiction over the infringement issue cannot rule on the issue of patent invalidity.

In 2008, Taiwan took a pioneer approach. By the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act, the newly established Intellectual Property Court, later on becoming the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court ("IPC Court"), actively enjoyed the jurisdictions on the subjects of both the patent infringement and invalidation. It was the first time that a civil court judge may hold the issues of claim construction, invalidation, and infringement in the same proceedings. It was a great move. The patent invalidation case before the TIPO remained unchanged at the same time, but the judicial review body became the IPC Court. The new two-track system has been operated well since 2008. But we got a big new plan.

In the past 15 years, one core issue has been extensively discussed. That is, how we can strengthen the due process of handling the technical disputes to better address the parties' procedural rights in both the court's and TIPO's proceedings. With respect to the court proceedings, we would like to do more than the current practice where the court in-house experts closely work with trial judges but litigation parties cannot have access to any of the communication between trial judges and the experts. In the TIPO proceedings, we plan to promote the examiners' position to somewhere like a US administrative judge and make the invalidation proceedings become a trial. After putting great efforts in past few years, the Congress is reviewing two important bills on the Patent Act and the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act. We expect the two bills will be passed and implemented in 2023.

The court and the TIPO are going to introduce its local rules with respect to the enforcement details of the two bills. So it would be great to learn from the US, Germany, and Japan on the ways of collecting evidence and trying technical disputes in the court and patent office's proceedings.

活動資訊