法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
論美國專利法制中專利域外仲裁之爭點效(A Study of Issue Preclusion of the U.S. Patent System Based on Foreign Patent Arbitration)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 謝祖松
出版日期: 2015.12
刊登出處: 台灣/銘傳大學法學論叢第 24 期/1-30 頁
頁  數: 30 點閱次數: 935
下載點數: 120 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 銘傳大學法律學院 授權者指定不分配權利金給作者)
關 鍵 詞: 排除效既判力爭點效專利仲裁
中文摘要: 既判力及爭點效之排除效可避免重覆訴訟,具訴訟經濟意義。然而,典型之排除效乃基於前案為一確定之終局判決,並非仲裁判斷;若此仲裁前案涉及專利標的且發生於外國,則更形複雜,故值得討論。
美國案例法針對此議題有細緻判決,另,成文法如其專利法第 35 條亦適用於發生於外國且涉及專利標的之仲裁前案情況。相較之下,我國相關法規已鋪陳一基本平台,使仲裁判斷得有若千程度之適用空問,但仍存有相關限制,致無法處理涉及專利有效性之外國仲裁的排除效議題。
本文建議,仲裁法第 1 條第 1 款,及第 2 條條文應予修正,使其適用於涉及專利標的之仲裁案;進而,建議修正增列類似美國專利法第 35 條之規定,使其適用於涉及專利標的之外國仲裁案,如此專利有效性議題亦得以處理。
英文關鍵詞: issue preclusionres judicatapatentarbitrationompetenz-kompetenz
英文摘要: The preclusion effect is important for patent litigants because it reduces enforcement and defense cost, however, it is typically established in the premises of the judicial proceeding, rather than arbitration. Arbitration is cheaper and faster than litigation, and some expect arbitration as a preferred means of resolving civil disputes to displacing court adjudication. Given that it is not uncommon to see our companies involving with foreign patent arbitrations, so the issue of whether the preclusion effect is applicable to these cases turns out to be very important to us.
The case law in U.S. provides regulations to deal with various situations about preclusion effect based on foreign patent arbitration. And, the statute such as 35 U.S.C. 294 also provides the U.S. system the capacity to handle the validity issue of patent arbitration, and further extends the scope to foreign patent arbitrations.
Basically, our regulations had laid a foundation where the arbitration may acquire certain degree of maneuverability. However, there are limitations to arbitral subject matter in our system, rendering it not being able to resolve the validity issue of foreign patent arbitration cases. This article therefore suggests that we should amend articles 1 paragraph 2 and article 2 of the Arbitration Act so that the arbitral subject matters can be reasonably extended to include, inter alia, patent ones; further, we should add new provision which is similar to the 35 U.S.C 294 to our Patent Law so that it can apply to arbitration, domestically and internationally. And, the validity issues can also be readily resolved, while the award is binding between the parties to the arbitration without force or effect on any other person. Only if we had done so, so can we properly resolve these current cases accordingly.
目  次: I. Introduction
II. Preclusion Effect Based on Arbitration in U.S.
A. Differences Between a Prior Judgment and Arbitration
B. The Decisionmaker of Arbitrability
1. Who Decide Arbitrability? - First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan
2. Who Decide Res Judicata to Subsequent Arbitration? - Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
III. Issue Preclusion Based on Foreign Patent Arbitration in U.S.
A. Validity Issue on Patent Arbitration in U.S.
B. Recognition of International Arbitration Award
C. Staying of Litigation - Deprenyl Animal Health, Inc. v. The University of Toronto Innovations Foundation
D. Issue Preclusion - China Minmetals Materials Imp. & Exp. Co. v. Chi Mei Corp.
IV. Preclusion Effect Based on Arbitration in Taiwan
A. The Taiwan Arbitration Act
B. Issue Preclusion Based on Foreign Patent Arbitration in Taiwan
V. Conclusion
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
謝祖松,論美國專利法制中專利域外仲裁之爭點效,銘傳大學法學論叢,第 24 期,1-30 頁,2015年12月。
返回功能列