Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/12564
|
| Title: | 從專利特許實施個案論我國對TRIPS協定義務之履行 |
| Other Titles: | Does Taiwan Comply with the TRIPS Agreement in Its Granting of Compulsory Licenses? |
| Authors: | 楊光華
Yang, Connie Guang-Hwa |
| Keywords: | 與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定;專利法;特許實施;當地實施;國家緊急情況;增進公益之非營利使用;可錄式光碟專利;克流感;強制授權學名藥出口
Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights;Patent law;Compulsory licensing;Local working requirement;National emergency;Public non-commercial use;CD-R;Tamiflu;Exports of generic medicine manufactured under compulsory licensing |
| Date: | 2007-02 |
| Issue Date: | 2008-12-03 13:59:00 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 強制授權在我國專利法又稱為特許實施，是平衡專利獨占權之重要機制。我國專利法雖自始即設有此機制，但直至近年方才出現具體個案：分別是飛利浦可錄式光碟規格專利以及克流感專利之特許實施。兩案不僅喧囂一時，更引起國際注目，因為均發生於我國加入世界貿易組織之後，故相關處理是否符合「與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定」（TRIPS）之規定，殊值重視。本文從兩方面進行檢視：首先，兩案所適用之條文（即我專利法第七十六條），是否符合TRIPS協定之相關規定？其次，適用之結果，是否符合TRIPS協定之意旨？
為進行上述檢視，本文先介紹TRIPS協定相關規定之發展，以及我專利法之繼受情形，而歸結出我專利法之特許實施條文與TRIPS協定相關規定並無重大歧異；接著分析上述兩案之爭點，並確認具體適用結果亦未違反TRIPS協定。不過，由於適用的爭議顯示我專利法相關條文確有修正的必要，故建議智慧財產權局未來為允許強制授權製造之學名藥出口而檢修我專利法特許實施條文時，應特別注意操作性程序以利實務運作，同時，對於現有條文第七十六條第一項「緊急情況」之認定權歸屬，依「緊急情況或增進公益非營利使用」事由而申請特許實施時之程序規定、以及同條第二項為糾正「專利權人有限制競爭或不公平競爭之情事」應特許實施時之機關規定，應參酌上述兩案的經驗，一併加以修正。最後，對於以「合理協商不成」做為申請特許實施事由一節，本文提醒專利專責機關注意國際間有關「當地實施」的爭議，以避免違背TRIPS協定第27.1條之不歧視原則。
Compulsory licensing is also known as a “special permit to use” a patent in Taiwan’s Patent Law. It is one of the important mechanisms to counter the monopoly of a patent. Taiwan has had such a mechanism in place ever since it had Patent Law decades ago, but there had been no relevant case to emerge until two did in recent years. Up to now, the two compulsory licensing cases were related to Phillip’s CD-R patents and Tamiflu, respectively. Both cases generated a great deal of discussion locally and also attracted significant international attention. Since both occurred after Taiwan’s accession to the World Trade Organization, the question of whether Taiwan’s decisions thereof are consistent with the provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has been deemed worthy of study. This article takes a two-step approach in conducting such a study: first, it compares Article 76 of Taiwan’s Patent Law, which are the provisions applied in the two cases, with the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement; second, it examines the TRIPS-consistency of the decisions of the cases, which are the outcomes of application of the said provisions.
In order to make the comparison, this article reviews the development of the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and the manner in which Taiwan’s Patent Law adopted them. After it finds no material discrepancy between them, it then goes on to analyze the issues of the said two cases and finds neither decision to have violated the TRIPS Agreement. However, the controversy surrounding both disputes revealed the need to further refine relevant provisions of the Patent Law. Therefore, this article suggests that the Intellectual Property Office of Taiwan revise several parts of current compulsory licensing legislation when it amends the rules to allow export of generic medicine manufactured under compulsory licensing in response to the recent decision of the WTO. The parts this article proposes for revision based on the experience of the above two cases include adding more details for application procedure, specifying the agency determining “national emergency” in Article 76(1), clarifying the procedure for compulsory licensing based on national emergency and other non-commercial public use, and allowing the antitrust agency to grant compulsory licensing directly under Article 76(2) of the Patent Law. Finally, regarding “prior request of licensing”, which is one of the reasons for compulsory licensing according to Taiwan’s Patent Law, this article emphasizes the importance of its compliance with the non-discrimination principle embodied in Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement taking into account the controversy of the “local working” requirement. |
| Relation: | 政大法學評論, 95, 265-321 |
| Data Type: | article |
| Appears in Collections: | [國際經營與貿易學系 ] 期刊論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML2 | 1081 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
