美國之專利權耗盡原則自建立以來，已發展了一百六十年有餘，聯邦最高法院於2017年裁定對於美國專利權耗盡原則有重大影響之Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.案，重新闡釋了專利權耗盡原則之目的，給全世界的貿易與專利授權體系帶來了強烈的衝擊。本文主要研究目的有三，探討：一、專利權耗盡原則之意義與沿革；二、專利權人是否可藉由契約迴避專利權耗盡原則；以及三、觸發專利權耗盡原則之首次銷售地點是否以國內為限。本文藉分析聯邦最高法院以及聯邦上訴法院之相關判決，從而探討專利權耗盡原則之理論根本與實務發展。於 Impression Products案中，聯邦最高法院明確地表示專利權耗盡原則係象徵著專利權屈服於反對在轉讓時施加限制之普通法原則，據此明確地推翻了聯邦巡迴上訴法院可藉由售後限制迴避專利權耗盡原則與應採國內耗盡之見解。本文認為，根據聯邦最高法院於Impression Products案之見解，專利權人將有兩種做法可迴避耗盡原則之適用：一、調整授權契約之條款；與二、調整企業組織，將專利讓與其他公司管理。

The doctrine of patent exhaustion in the U.S.A. (hereinafter called the ‘exhaustion rule’) has been developing more than 160 years since it was established by The Supreme Court of The United States (hereinafter called the ‘The Supreme Court’), The Supreme Court reinterpreted the purpose of the exhaustion rule by adjudicating influential Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. which brought tremendous impact to the whole world’s trade and patent licensing system. The primary purposes of this article are three, to explore: 1. the significance and evolvement of the exhaustion rule; 2. whether the patentees could take advantage of post-sale restrictions to elude the exhaustion rule; and 3. whether the first sale that triggers the exhaustion rule would be limited to domestic sale. By means of analyzing associated precedents of The Surpeme Court and The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (hereinafter called the ‘C.A.F.C.’), the article explores the theory behind the exhaustion rule and the evolvement of the exhaustion rule. In Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., The Supreme Court explicitly announce the exhaustion rule marks the point where patent rights yield to the common law principle against restraints on alienation, and hereby abrogating C.A.F.C.’s both decisions allowing patentee makes use of circumventing the exhaustion rule by means of post-sale restrictions and adopting national exhaustion. The article argues that there would be two solutions to circumvent the application of the exhaustion rule in accordance with The Supreme Court’s opinion in Impression Products: 1. adjusting the clauses of the licensing agreement; and 2. reorganizing corporate structure and assigning patents to other companies to manage them.

參考文獻

中文參考文獻

1. 江建毅，〈專利權耗盡原則之研究〉，《輔仁大學財經法律學系碩士論文》 (2008)。
2. 沈宗倫，〈由權利耗盡原則論合法專利物之使用界限：以專利物組裝與修復為中心〉，《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，第39卷第1期，頁287~352 (2010)。
3. 林珀如，〈美國專利權耗盡原則之研究：以聯邦最高法院 Quanta v. LGE 判決造成之衝擊與反思為中心〉，《國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文》(2010)。
4. 陳佳麟，〈美國專利產品的修理與再製之區分與案例類型〉，《科技法學評論》，第3卷，頁203-247 (2006)。
5. 陳斌，〈美國專利法第271條(g)項「方法專利侵權」之研究〉，《國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文》(2005)。
6. 馮曉青，〈專利權之立法宗旨研究〉，《月旦民商法雜誌》，第22期，頁157~172，元照出版公司 (2008)。
7. 楊淑芳，〈專利權耗盡原則與默示授權原則〉，《世新大學法律學系碩士論文》(2004)。
8. 楊德橋，〈合同視角下的專利默示許可研究——以美中兩國的司法實踐為考察對象〉，《北方法學》，2017年01期，頁56~70 (2017)。
9. 劉立平，〈歐洲的專利產品平行進口及專利權區域用盡論〉，《專利法研究 (1999)》，頁232~253，知識產權出版社 (1999)。
10. 劉強，〈專利權用盡的售後限制研究——以專利權保留規則的構建為視角〉，《知識產權》，2016年02期，頁56~64 (2016)。
11. 謝銘洋，〈專利進口權與平行輸入〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，頁80~86，元照出版公司 (1995)。

外文參考文獻

1. Bonadio, Enrico., Parallel imports in a global market: Should a generalised international exhaustion be the next step?, (2011).
2. Hatfield, Amber L., Patent Exhaustion, Implied Licenses, and Have-Made Rights: Gold Mines or Mine Fields?, 2000 Computer L. Rev. & Tech. J. (2000): 1.
3. Heath, Christopher, Parallel imports and international trade, IIC 28.5 (1999)
4. Rajec, Sarah R., Free Trade in Patented Goods: International Exhaustion for Patents, 29 Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2014): 317-376.
5. Stothers, Christopher., Patent exhaustion: the UK perspective, 16th Annual Conference on Intellectual Property Law and Policy, New York. (2008).
6. Swope, Michael J., Recent Developments in Patent Law: Implied License-An Emerging Threat to Contributory Infringement Protection, Temple L. Rev. 68 (1995): 281.
7. Rovner, Amber Hatfield., Practical Guide to Application of (or Defense Against) Product-Based Infringement Immunities Under the Doctrines of Patent Exhaustion and Implied License, Tex. Intell. Prop. LJ 12 (2003): 227.