查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 專利標示與損害賠償之司法適用與立法檢討-智慧財產法院九十八年度民專上易字第十八號民事判決解析兼評專利法修正草案=Patent Marking and Litigation: A Review on Cases and Patent Reform in Taiwan |
---|---|
作 者 | 謝銘洋; | 書刊名 | 中原財經法學 |
卷 期 | 24 2010.06[民99.06] |
頁 次 | 頁1-27 |
分類號 | 440.6 |
關鍵詞 | 專利標示; 專利侵害; Patent marking; Patent infringement; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 專利標示之規定有其重要性與意義,雖然各國之情形有所不同,但各國都是根據自己本身之法律體系而為規範。我國專利法之規定,雖經數度修改,但仍不改其為損害賠償前提之性質,而造成雙重舉證之困境。我國司法實務在實際運用上,往往將其作為認定具備侵權行為故意過失之依據。本文除參酌各國之規定,對我國現有規定加以檢討,也對專利法修正草案提出檢討,最後並提出具體之修法建議。本文認為在我國對於專利侵害採故意過失之法律體系下,不妨修法將此一標示之規定賦予推定過失之法律效力,以符合我國實務運作之情形,同時參考美國法,對於未為標示之情形,將「證明侵害人明知或可得而知」之主觀認定標準,改為以客觀之「通知」為認定之標準。 |
英文摘要 | There is great significance in the regulation of patent marking. Although the detail of it may not be exactly the same in most countries, they design it based on their own legal system. In Taiwan, although Patent Law has been amended for several times, patent marking remains the prerequisite of compensation, which generates the dilemma of double presenting evidence. In Taiwan’s judicial practice, courts often take it as the evidence of intention or negligence in infringement activities. This article not only refers to the regulations in other countries and reviews Taiwan’s contemporary statutes, but reviews the draft amendment of Patent Law and proposes a specific advice to the amendment. It argues that based on Taiwan’s legal system, in which intention and negligence are necessary in constituting patent infringement, it may be acceptable to give patent marking a legal effect to presume the existence of fault in order to conform with the judicial practice. Besides, it argues that, like US patent law, when the patentee doesn’t mark the patent product, it may be a good idea to amend the subjective criterion, which “the infringer has known, or should have known”, into objective criterion, which is is to prove “having noticed” the infringer. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。