專利民事侵權開示型證據保全之聲請要件－以法國法為比較

The Requirements for Confirmation-Type Perpetuation of Evidence in Civil Patent Infringement Cases: With a Comparative Discussion of French Law

10.53106/207873752024010028003

蘇倚德(SU Yii-Der)

專利法 ； 智慧財產案件審理法 ； 證據保全 ； 開示型 ； 聲請要件 ； 法國法 ； 證據取得 ； Patent Act ； Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act ； Perpetuation of Evidence ； Confirmation-Type ； Requirements for Motions ； French Law ； Saisie-Contrefaçon

中正財經法學

28期（2024 / 01 / 01）

103 - 184

繁體中文;英文

專利法因其具備「公共財」特性，容易被侵害，且較難被察覺，其次，又基於其無體性而加劇侵權誘因，隨著當代技術之發展，導致智慧財產侵權成本大幅降低，專利侵權案件常有「證據偏在」之情形，再考量到專利法已無刑事責任，無法採用搜索、扣押制度蒐證，亦使專利侵權訴訟對於民事證據保全之需求度高於一般民事程序。然而，智慧財產法院運作十餘載，證據保全聲請核准率偏低，且欠缺可預見性及安定性，不符立法者於2000年，在既有「緊急型」存在的前提下，新設「開示型」以提升核准率的意旨，也因此法國運作超過兩百年之高效穩定證據取得制度，更具研究意義與參考價值。本文首先闡明臺灣專利侵權民事證據保全適用聲請要件所遇之瓶頸，其次論述近期最高法院111年度台抗字第437號裁定及智慧財產案件審理法大幅強化證據規則部分，作為司法權與立法權就此議題的重要回應，之後納入法國相關立法例討論，以充分發揮比較法之價值，並於結論嘗試針對臺灣未來施行新制時提出方案建議，以期完善整體證據保全制度。

Due to its inherent characteristics as a "public good", patent right is particularly susceptible to infringement and more challenging to detect. Furthermore, its intangible nature exacerbates the propensity for infringement. With the advancement of contemporary technology, the cost of intellectual property infringement has significantly decreased, leading to situations in patent infringement cases "where evidence may frequently be biased or favor one party". Consequently, the need for the perpetuation of evidence in patent infringement litigation often surpasses that in general civil proceedings. However, after more than a decade of operation, intellectual property courts have shown a low grant rate of motion for perpetuation of evidence, and a lack of predictability and stability. This inconsistency with the legislator's intention of introducing a confirmation-type provision in 2000 to increase grant rates, even while urgency-type provisions are already in place, highlights the significance of France's efficient and stable system of Saisie-Contrefaçon, functioning for over two hundred years, as it offers important research implications and reference value. This article first elucidates the bottlenecks encountered in the requirements for motions concerning the perpetuation of evidence in Taiwanese civil patent infringement cases. It then examines the Supreme Court ruling (111 Tai Kang Zi no. 437) in 2022 and the substantial reinforcement of evidence rules within the "Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act" in 2023. This article relies on practical rulings for validation and analysis and incorporates discussions of pertinent French legal experiences. By fully leveraging the value of comparative law, the article attempts to identify potential issues and offers suggestions for Taiwan's future implementation of these new regulations, aiming to enhance the overall legal structure.