您在這裡

主力技術及效益

       本校是司法院及行政院會銜發佈的「侵害鑑定機構」,所謂「侵害鑑定機構」指的是在智慧財產權案件,尤其是專利侵權案件後,接受法院囑託對需要鑑別確定的專門技術性問題,依照法律規定指派具有鑑定能力的鑑定人員進行檢驗、鑑別和判斷等科學實證活動之機構。侵害鑑定機構通常除接受民事法院囑託外,也接受專利侵權案件中當事人委託進行鑑定;同時,侵害鑑定機構也可能接受行政法院囑託進行專利有效性之鑑定。在我國智慧財產權訴訟案件,尤其是專利訴訟案件的審理過程中,每一件案件的訴訟卷宗裏難免都會有一份以上的鑑定報告。這些鑑定報告有些是原告所提出,有些是被告所提出,更有些是法官所託進行鑑定。這些鑑定報告的製作者,有些是個人,便有許多是有關機關、團體、研究單位或大學等「侵害鑑定機構」所作成。

  在我國司法實務中,鑑定報告往往在專利侵害訴訟案件中扮演舉足輕重之角色,訴訟的成敗乎完全取決於法官究竟採信何一鑑定報告。因此,專利訴訟常常演變成一場「鑑定大戰」,例如在著名的普司通案中,共有工研院化工所、國立清華大學生命科學系、食品工業發展研究所、大直專利事務所、中央標準局、蔡正揚博士、普司通公司、國立台灣科技大學化工所、國立陽明大學生物化學研究所、美國Molloy Associates等眾多單位提出鑑定報告。這些提出鑑定報告的單位大部分都是所謂的「侵害鑑定機構」,只有少部分是由個人提出,由此可見侵害鑑定機構在專利侵害訴訟案件中的重要性。

  專利侵害訴訟案件時常涉及法律以外之專業技術問題,如醫藥化學、生物科技、奈米科技、半導體製程或晶片組構造等之爭議。對於這些專業技術問題,法官通常無法就訴訟上已知的資料進行判斷,而必須仰賴或參考外部資料才能作出判斷。此時,具有專業儀器設備及專業訓練人員的有關組織、機關、大學或研究單位等機構就成了提供這些外部資料給予法官參考的主要人選。

  依據我國民事訴訟及刑事訴訟法的相關規定,法院不限於囑託機構進行鑑定,法院亦可選任個人進行鑑定(民事訴訟法第324條、第340條)。不過,通常當事人或法官都較為信任「機構」而非「個人」,認為學術單位或財團法人機構應該較個人立場為中立,並且較為客觀及較具公信力,因此在在發生專利侵害訴訟時,亦較傾向於交由機構而不是個人進行鑑定。

  由於專利侵害訴訟案件常涉及專業性的事實認定問題,而我國的法官或檢察官一般並無技術方面的專業知識,因此法官或檢察官為究明事實,常常必須仰賴專業機構提供鑑定意見以資參考。

      Our school is one of the infringement assessment organizations that accredited by Administrative Yuan and Judicial Yuan. The so called infringement assessment organization is authorized by court to deal with, exanimate, distinguish IP cases especially patent infringement.  In litigations, especially the patent cases, generally there is at least one assessment report that would be filed by plaintiff, defendant or judges.

      Practically, assessment report plays an important role in patent law suit, and the trial is decided by any report that judge adopts.  Thus, patent law suit usually become the war of the assessment, and in the most well-known cases, the verification reports were proposed by infringement verification organization; only minor cases proposed by litigants.

      Patent infringement cases usually involve in technical issues, such as the issues about medical chemistry, biotech, nano-tech, semiconductor production or chip structure.  Because of the professional technological problem, judges usually rely on reference material.

      In our civil procedural law and criminal procedural law, court is not limited to entrust organization to analyze infringement, the court entrust personal as well (according to civil procedural law article 324, 240).  However, both parties and judges consider organization is more neutral, objective, and trustable so that tend to be analyzed by them compare to personal.

      Due to fact identification which involved in profession in patent infringement law suit, our judges or prosecutors lack of technical professional knowledge to inquire into the technical fact, and rely on the analysis of professional organization.