Search

由於專利為無體財產，其權利邊界尚須透過申請專利範圍解釋始能確定，權利範圍本質欠缺直接的明確性，影響權利的對外公示，以致不易達致權利公信的目的。另外，專利侵害並不會造成權利人對於權利支配的全面剝奪，其損害僅反映在市場的經濟損失，以及專利評價至今尚未具有可信的共識，因此，損害賠償範圍的認定，遠較傳統物權為困難，若無精確的相當因果關係適度調節損害賠償範圍，一方面，在某些情形下，可能造成賠償不充分，進而影響專利權人未來繼續研發的誘因，偏離專利法的經濟目的宗旨；另一方面，亦可能在特定的狀況下，令專利權人獲致法律所允許以外的超額賠償利益，同時阻礙了他人利用合法資源從事技術改良或再創新的機會，違背專利法平衡專利權人與公眾二者間利益衝突的意旨。本文有鑑於以因果關係調節專利損害賠償的重要性，希望藉由筆者對於比較法相關議題的觀察與反省（Panduit 案的損害賠償計算原則與「完全市場法則」），以及對於專利法本身立法宗旨與法理的體會，就我國專利法關於損害賠償的責任範圍因果關係（特別針對專利法第85 條第一項第一款與第二款），予以界定與釐清，以確定最適利益衡量下的損害賠償，並適度檢討我國相關的判決發展。 Due to the intangibility of patents, the scope of a patent is determined through interpretation of claims. The interpretation of claims is so uncertain that the scope of a patent is hard to function as public notice for the reliance of the public. Moreover, patent infringement never deprives the patentee of the full domination of rights, but has negative impact upon economic interests of the patentee in the market. Consequently, calculation of patent damage is more difficult than that of traditional property damage. If no adequate causation is taken to measure the scope of patent damage, the damage would either overcompensate or frustrate the patentee. In view of the key role the causation is playing in adjusting patent damage, this article attempts to clarify and comment on the evaluation of patent damage under Taiwan patent law and related court cases, through the comparative observation of laws and the recognition of jurisprudence of patent law.