| 摘要註: |
對於專利、商標或工業設計等智慧思想之保護，國際間於1883年締結「保護工業財產權巴黎公約（Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property）」，將前述智慧思想，統稱為「工業財產權」（Industrial Property Right），直到1893年巴黎公約（Paris Convention）與伯恩公約（Berne Convention）國際局合成保護智慧財產權聯合局（United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property），始出現「智慧財產權」的用詞，且為當今各國所通用。，我國對於智慧財產權採取立法者，計有專利法、商標法、著作權法、積體電路電路布局保護法及營業秘密法，分別作為保護專利權、商標權、著作權、積體電路及電路布局、及營業秘密等權利。 其次，發明人或創作人如將個人或集體之技術思想創作轉換成為文字與圖說，並持之向專利主管機關提出專利申請，如因此獲准專利權時，專利權人即得以專利法為據，對外合法行使其權利。而專利權係以申請專利範圍（Claims）為據，專利權人除具有積極實施其專利權之效力外，並於第三人未經其同意而為製造、為販賣之要約、販賣、使用或為上述目的而進口時，發生消極排他效力。故而，當專利權人因專利法所賦予之獨占力量，而與競爭法中之限制或妨礙公平競爭禁止之規定互相違背時，如何解釋或解決前述競合問題，乃為本文之主要研究重點。 本文首先論述專利權之分類，並舉我國法、世界貿易組織（WTO）之｢與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定｣（Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Including Trade in Counterfeit Goods, 簡稱TRIPs）、與我國發明人較常申請之國家專利法之規定解說；其次，取得專利權之過程，包含專利主管機關啟動行政程序之後所為授與專利權之行政處分，與專利權之性質，分別專章介紹；繼之，既然專利權效力乃是源自於申請專利範圍，本文將就專利權利範圍之判斷方法，以我國法令與實務見解，與外國法作比較分析。另者，專利權之獨占性，實與競爭法中之獨占事業互有關聯，本文並提出各國競爭法關於獨占事業要件與濫用行為禁止規定進行比較；以及專利權既為專利主管機關所授與，專利權人如能謹守法律界限，合法行使其權利，即應被排除於競爭法中之限制與妨礙競爭之列，並且比較我國公平交易法與日本獨占禁止法、美國反托拉斯法與歐盟競爭規則等為說明；最後，文末並作成結論並提出部分建議。 In 1883 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property concluded to use an appellation “Industrial Property Right” internationally for protecting patents, trademarks. Industrial designs, intellectual idea, etc. In 1893 Paris Convention, Berne Convention and United International Bureau for the Protection of Intellectual Property began the usage of ‘Intellectual Property Right” instead of “Industrial Property Right”, and recommended every country to do so. Our country has now established especially legal laws such as Patent Act, Trademark Act, Copyright Act, and Protecting Act for IC circuit and Business Secret Act for protecting respectively patents, trademarks, copyright, IC circuits and circuit arrangements, and business secrets.Next, after an inventor or an innovator translates his personal or collective technical idea into a description and drawings, applies for its claims to Patent Bureau and obtains a patent for it, the patentee can enforce the claims domestically and abroad in compliance with Patent Act. As the claims are limited by the scope of applied claims, the patentee has the right to enforce the claims in the granted scope, and negative exclusiveness arises if a third party should manufacture, use, offer for sale, sell or import for these purposes the product obtained directly by that process without the patentee’s consent. When the patentee gets the monopoly granted by Patent Act and violates less competition or impedes fair competition prescribed in Fair Trade Act, how to interpret these problems becomes the key research point of this paper.Moreover, claims are based on the scope of the applied claims, so classification of the claims has to be firstly discussed, and the domestic acts, Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, including Trade in Counterfeit Goods, (TRIPs in short) of WTO and the national patent act that our people have to depend on in applying a patent have to be referred to for interpretation. Next, the procedure of obtaining the patent including the administering process and granting of a patent by Patent Bureau .and the property of the patent are to be introduced. As the exclusiveness and monopoly of the claims are originated from the scope of the applied claims, the judgment of the scope of the claims are to be interpreted in compliance with Patent Act, the administering regulations and practical matters. As to the effectiveness of the claims, it has to be discussed by comparing the acts of our country and foreign countries. In addition, as the claims are provided with exclusiveness and monopoly and related to the market structure in Fair trade Act, the market structure has to be compared according to the economic act and Fair Trade Act. And lastly, it is a fact that the claims are granted by Patent Bureau, they are to be exempted from the less competition and unfair competition prescribed in Fair Trade Act so long as the claims are observed legally. This paper is explained by comparing Fair Trade Act of our country and American regulations. The last article is a partial suggestion as the conclusion of this paper. |