專利權濫用（Patent Misuse）乃是被控侵權人之免責抗辯事由。美國聯邦最高法院於20世紀上半葉建立本原則時，清楚表明應以專利法基本原則（patent policy）作為是否濫用之判斷標準。1982年聯邦巡迴上訴法院（C.A.F.C.）成立，開創全新道路，在Virginia Panel案確立兩階段判斷標準，第二階段採用競爭法之合理原則判斷有無反競爭效果，以認定是否構成非當然違法類型之專利權濫用。2010年Princo案，C.A.F.C.再度壓縮專利權濫用之存在空間。依本文對美國法院判決調查統計結果，自1982年以來當事人主張專利權濫用抗辯的案件數目並不多，其中獲判成立的案件更只有9件，其中5件出現在C.A.F.C.以外之上訴法院針對當然違法類型之判決。C.A.F.C.採納合理原則之二階段判準，看似相當持平，但實際適用上C.A.F.C卻格外嚴峻，至今尚無任何案件通過本判斷標準而構成專利權濫用。惟2015年最高法院Kimble v. Marvel案再度確認專利權濫用之存在價值，至少在當然違法類型，專利權濫用原則將會繼續存在。

Patent misuse is a defense claimed by the alleged infringer. The U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine in the first half of the twentieth century and clarified that it should be determined by patent policy. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (C.A.F.C.) was established and opened a brand-new way. C.A.F.C. set up the “two-part test” in Virginia Panel v. Mac Panel and the second part applied the “rule of reason” adopted from antitrust law to determine whether the behavior at issue constitutes per se illegal. In Princo Corp. v. ITC in 2010, C.A.F.C. narrowed the scope of the patent misuse doctrine again. According to the empirical research of the U.S. court decisions, the cases in which either party claims patent misuse defense are rare. The total number of cases in which the defense succeeded amounts to only 9, and 5 among them are judged by the other courts of appeals instead of the C.A.F.C.. The “rule of reason” in “two-part test” which C.A.F.C. applies seems unbiased, yet it is extremely rigorous. There’s no case passes this test and thus constitutes patent misuse so far. Notably, in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court reconfirmed the value of patent misuse in Kimble v. Marvel, and at least in the per se illegal category, patent misuse doctrine will keep on existing.

1. 緒論 1
1.1 問題意識 1
1.2 專利權濫用之意義與內涵 1
1.2.1 美國法上發展 1
1.2.1 我國法上概況 2
1.3 研究目的 3
1.4 研究範圍與方法 3
1.5 論文架構 4
2. 發展歷史 5
2.1 專利權濫用原則的起源 6
2.1.1 概念提出：Motion Picture案 6
2.1.2 見解延續與標準擺盪：Carbice案與 Leitch案 7
2.1.3 名詞確立：Morton Salt案 8
2.2 專利權濫用原則的高峰期：Mercoid系列案件 9
2.3 1952年專利法修正：劃定專利權濫用與輔助侵權之界線 12
2.4 C.A.F.C.成立與早期見解 15
2.4.1 美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院成立 15
2.4.2 Windsurfing案：增加反競爭效果之新要件 15
2.4.3 曇花一現的回歸：Senza-Gel案 16
2.5 1988年專利權濫用改革法 17
2.6 1998改革法後迄今之發展 19
2.6.1 反競爭效果要件正式確立：Mallinckrodt案 19
2.6.2 二階段判準：Virginia Panel案 20
2.6.3 持續提高構成門檻：Princo案 22
2.6.3.1 案件事實與法院判決 22
2.6.3.2 評論 25
3. 專利權濫用型態 27
3.1 垂直共同定價 27
3.2 搭售 27
3.2.1 簡介 27
3.2.2 搭售與輔助侵權 28
3.2.3 搭售的合法性 29
3.3 包裹授權 31
3.4 專利屆期後支付權利金 34
3.4.1 基本型態及代表案例 34
3.4.2 Brulotte案適用範圍 35
3.4.2.1 「期後」之定義 35
3.4.2.2 不以金錢為對價 36
3.4.2.3 授權時尚未取得專利權 36
3.4.3 Brulotte案的反對聲浪 37
3.4.4 爭議終結或開端？──最高法院維持Brulotte案 38
3.5 回饋授權條款 40
3.6 限制授權專利的使用 41
3.6.1 使用方式的限制 41
3.6.2 分割市場協議 42
3.6.3 水平協議 42
3.6.4 差別取價 43
3.7 惡意行為 43
3.7.1 申請專利程序中的不正當行為 44
3.7.2 濫訴 46
3.7.3 濫用行政、司法程序 48
3.8 其他類型 49
3.9 小結 50
4. 美國專利權濫用判決之實證調查分析 52
4.1 調查統計方法與限制 52
4.2 實證量化分析結果 53
4.2.1 案件數量 53
4.2.1.1 各審級間比較 53
4.2.1.2 各年度案件數比較 54
4.2.1.3 同審級各法院比較 58
4.2.2 判決結果 61
4.2.2.1 聯邦巡迴上訴法院 61
4.2.2.2 一般聯邦上訴法院 62
4.2.2.3 聯邦地方法院 63
4.2.3 下級審判決維持率 64
4.2.4 濫用行為類型 66
4.2.4.1 聯邦巡迴上訴法院 66
4.2.4.2 一般聯邦上訴法院 67
4.2.4.3 聯邦地方法院 68
4.2.5 系爭專利所屬產業領域 69
4.2.5.1 聯邦巡迴上訴法院 70
4.2.5.2 一般聯邦上訴法院 71
4.2.5.3 聯邦地方法院 71
4.3 小結 72
5. 特殊態樣案件分析與研究──濫訴 74
5.1 美國實務判斷標準──Professional Real Estate Investors Inc.案 74
5.2 我國判決介紹──武田-健亞藥品侵權假處分案 76
5.3 判決比較 78
5.4 小結 79
6. 結論 81
參考文獻 83

 

參考文獻
中文期刊
王立達，鄭卉晴，〈智慧財產權人擴張權利金收取標的之研究──以美國競爭規範之區別處理為中心〉，《公平交易季刊》，第19卷第3期，頁50，2011年7月。
何曜任，〈美國法專利權濫用理論─對我國法之啟示〉，《智慧財產評論》，第9卷第2期，頁23，2011年12月。
陳家駿，〈公平交易法中行使專利權之不正當行為〉，《法令月刊》，第45卷第1期，頁16-22，1994年月。
謝銘洋，〈由華康與文鼎案談專利權之濫用〉，《月旦法學》，創刊號，頁80-82，1995年5月。
中文學位論文
林政益，《專利權與競爭法相互關係之研究-以專利權濫用為中心》，雲林科技大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2009年1月。
林鈺珊，《論專利權濫用》，交通大學管理學院碩士在職專班級科技法律組學位論文，2007年6月。
周筱涵，《公平交易法有關智慧財產權排除條款之適用-論專利權濫用範疇》，逢甲大學財經法律研究所碩士論文，2013年1月。
其他中文參考文獻
100.11.29專利法修正總說明及條文對照表，專利法修法專區，經濟部智慧財產局：https://www.tipo.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=202969&CtNode=6704&mp=1（最後點閱時間：2015年10月22日）。
換質換位律，維基百科，https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%8F%9B%E8%B3%　AA%E6%8F%9B%E4%BD%8D%E5%BE%8B （最後點閱時間：2015年10月26日）。
英文書籍
1 GOLDSTEIN, PAUL, COPYRIGHT: PRINCIPLES, LAW AND PRACTICE (1989).
10 AREEDA, PHILLIP E., & HERBERT HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW: AN ANALYSIS OF ANTITRUST PRINCIPLES AND THEIR APPLICATION (1996).
16 CHISUM, DONALD S., CHISUM ON PATENTS (2003).
2 NIMMER, MELVILLE, & DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT (1992).
3 Klein, Benjamin, THE NEW PALGRAVE DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS AND THE LAW (1998).
ADELMAN, MARTIN J., RANDALL R. RADER, JOHN R. THOMAS & HAROLD C. WEGNER, CASES AND MATERIALS ON PATENT LAW (3d ed. 2009).
BOHANNAN, CHRISTINA, & HERBERT HOVENKAMP, CREATION WITHOUT RESTRAINT (2011).
BORK, ROBERT, THE ANTITRUST PARADOX 372-375 (1978).
BOWMAN, WARD, PATENT AND ANTITRUST (1973).
GOLDSTEIN, PAUL, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (2007).
HOVENKAMP, HERBERT, MARK D. JANIS, MARK A. LEMLEY, & CHRISTOPHER R. LESLIE, IP AND ANTITRUST: AN ANALYSIS OF ANTITRUST PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (Supp. 2003).
LESLIE, CHRISTOPHER, ANTITRUST LAW AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (2011).
LIM, DARYL, PATENT MISUSE AND ANTITRUST LAW: EMPIRICAL, DOCTRINAL AND POLICY PERSPECTIVES (2013).
POSNER, RICHARD A., & FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, ANTITRUST (2d ed. 1981).
POSNER, RICHARD, ANTITRUST LAW: AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE (2d ed. 2001).
SULLIVAN, LAWRENCE, HANDBOOK OF THE LAW OF ANTITRUST (1977).
英文期刊
Allison, John R. & Mark A. Lemley, Who’s Patenting What? An Empirical Exploration of Patent Prosecution, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 2099 (2000).
Arnold, Tom, & Louis Riley, Contributory Infringement and Patent Misuse: The Enactment of § 271 and Its Subsequent Amendments, 76 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 357 (1994).
Arquit, Kevin J., Patent Abuse and the Antitrust Laws, 59 ANTITRUST L.J. 739 (1991).
Bennett, Joel R., Patent Misuse: Must an Alleged Infringer Prove an Antitrust Violation?, 17 A.I.P.L.A.Q.J. 1 (1989).
Bilicki, Byron A., Standard Antitrust Analysis and the Doctrine of Patent Misuse: A Unification Under the Rule of Reason, 46 U. PITT. L. REV. 209 (1984).
Bohannan, Christina & Herbert Hovenkamp, IP and Antitrust: Reformation and Harm, 51 B.C. L. REV. 905 (2010).
Bohannan, Christina, IP Misuse as Foreclosure, 96 IOWA L REV. 475 (2011).
Bowman, Jr., Ward S., Tying Arrangements and the Leverage Problem, 67 YALE L.J. 19 (1957).
Chiappetta, Vincent, Living with Patents: Insights from Patent Misuse, 15 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 1 (2011).
Cotter, Thomas F., Misuse, 44 HOUS. L. REV. 901 (2007).
Director, Aaron & Edward H. Levi, Law and the Future: Trade Regulation, 51 NW. U. L. REV. 281 (1956).
Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper, Dethroning Lear: Licensee Estoppel and the Incentive to Innovate, 72 VA. L.REV. 677 (1986).
Elhauge, Einer, Tying, Bundled Discounts, and the Death of the Single Monopoly Profit Theory, 123 HARV. L. REV. 397 (2009).
Feldman, Robin Cooper, Essay, Defensive Leveraging in Antitrust, 87 GEO. L.J. 2079, (1999).
Feuer, Mortimer, The Patent Monopoly and the Anti-Trust Laws, 38 COLUM. L. REV. 1145 (1938).
Frischmann, Brett & Dan Moylan, The Evolving Common Law Doctrine of Copyright Misuse: A Unified Theory and its Application to Software, 15 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 865 (2000).
Goller, Gilbert, Competing, Complementary and Blocking Patents: Their Role in Determining Antitrust Violations in the Areas of Cross-Licensing, Patent Pooling and Package Licensing, 50 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 723 (1968).
Homiller, Daniel P., Patent Misuse in Patent Pool Licensing: From National Harrow to “The Nine No-Nos” to Not Likely, 2006 DUKE L. & TECH. REV. 7 (2006).
Hsueh, Bruce Y. & Morris Tu, Application of Market Level Analysis in Anti-Trust Regulation on IP Licensing—The Philips CD-R Case in Taiwan, 23 CHINESE (TAIWAN) Y.B. INT'L L. & AFF. 73 (2005).
Kaplow, Louis, Extension of Monopoly Power Through Leverage, 85 COLUM. L. REV. 515 (1985).
Markovits, Richard S., Tie-ins, Leverage, and the American Antitrust Laws, 80 YALE L.J. 195 (1970).
Markovits, Richard S., Tie-ins, Reciprocity, and the Leverage Theory, 76 YALE L.J. 1397 (1967).
Merges, Robert P., Reflections on Current Legislation Affecting Patent Misuse, 70 J. PAT. TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 793 (1988).
Miller, Joseph Scott, Standard Setting, Patents, and Access Lock-in: RAND Licensing and the Theory of the Firm, 40 IND. L. REV. 351 (2007).
Note, Is the Patent Misuse Doctrine Obsolete?, 110 HARV. L. REV. 1922 (1997).
Note, Patent Rights and the Antitrust Laws, 17 COLUM. L. REV. 542 (1917).
Posner, Richard A., The Chicago School of Antitrust Analysis, 127 U. PA. L. REV. 925 (1979).
See, Harold & Frank M. Caprio, The Trouble with Brulotte: The Patent Royalty Term and Patent Monopoly Extension, 1990 UTAH L. REV. 813 (1990).
Smaistrla, Charles J., Note, An Analysis of Tying Arrangements: Invalidating the Leveraging Hypothesis, 61 TEX. L. REV. 893 (1983).
Strasser, Kurt A., Atnitrust Policy for Tying Arrangements, 34 EMORY L.J. 254 (1985).
Wang, Richard Li-dar, Deviated, Unsound, and Self-Retreating: A Critical Assessment of the Princo v. ITC En Banc Decision, 16 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 50 (2012).
Webb, Jere M., & Lawrence A. Locke, Intellectual Property Misuse: Developments in the Misuse Doctrine, 4 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 257 (1988).
Wollenberg, Keith K., Note, An Economic Analysis of Tie-in Sales: Re-examining the Leverage Theory, 39 STAN.L. REV. 737 (1987).
英文論文集
Monopolies and Restraints of Trade, 54 AM. JUR. 2d § 88 (2d ed. 2012).
Shieh, Ming-Yan, A Discussion of the Relationship Between the Patent Law and the Fair Trade Law in Taiwan with a Review of the Philips CD-R Decisions, in THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETITION FRAMEWORK 155 (Tzong-Leh Hwang & Chiyuan Chen eds., 2004).
其他英文參考文獻
Quinn, Gene, Industry Insiders Reflect on Biggest Moments in IP for 2012 (Dec 27, 2012), available at: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/12/27/industry-insiders-reflect-on-biggest-moments-in-ip-for-2012/id=31924/ (quoting patent attorney Stephen Kunin.) (last visited: Oct. 27, 2015).
U.S. Dep’t of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm’n, Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition 107 (2007), available at: www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/hearings/ip/222655.pdf (last visited: Oct. 26, 2015).