目前歐洲之發明專利雖在申請程序上有統一窗口（以下所稱專利皆指發明專利），但在專利權被侵害時，仍須向歐盟各國之法院尋求救濟。為解決此等多重程序的不便利及裁判分歧，因此歐盟計畫在救濟制度上設立統合專利法院（The Unified Patent Court；UPC）。此法院不僅是統一有關專利紛爭的訴訟，而且在任何締約國皆有執行效力。在時程規劃上，由於相關條件未能如期滿足，因此原本估計最早於2017年12月正式開始運作之時程將有所延遲。[1]

本文主要介紹UPC之新發展，讓讀者可以從前端的專利申請面到後端的專利權利維護上，對歐洲專利制度有一整體及全面之了解。一方面，讓臺灣企業在制度生效前，能在歐洲專利之佈局擬定上，將此新發展預先納入考量。另一方面，同時希望可以藉由對UPC建置之認識，提供我國專利法院制度之發展，一個國際專利法院設計、規劃的視角。

現有的歐洲專利制度，雖基於歐洲專利公約之統合，可向歐洲專利局之統一窗口申請，然而取得的專利權，須在歐洲各國分別領證，而專利也僅歐洲各國分別有效。如此一來，若要透過訴訟程序解決歐洲專利權紛爭，將面臨多國訴訟、多重程序之情形，又因為歐洲各國的專利政策、制度、法律均不同，將會產生訴訟結果分歧或是程序速度不一之狀況，可能產生權利人疲於奔命，專利蟑螂也會選擇對自己勝訴機率較高的歐洲地區之法院提起訴訟（forum shopping）的狀況。另一方面，歐洲各國法院裁判不一、整體訴訟成本過高，也使得歐洲專利之價值下降。[2]因為實體權利若沒有權利救濟程序相配合，所賦予的權利將會落空。由此可見實體權利與訴訟救濟，二者關係密不可分又互相牽動。

為解決上述問題，歐盟理事會（THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION）與歐洲議會（THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT）於2012年12月發佈兩項規則：其一是在落實單一專利保護領域之加強合作，即發展「歐盟單一專利制度」（Unitary Patent）與UPC；其二是在落實在單一專利保護發展的申請翻譯文本安排之加強合作。[3]歐盟各國於2013年2月簽署統合專利法院協議（AGREEMENT ON A UNIFIED PATENT COURT；以下簡稱「UPC協議」），並開放給所有歐盟會員國加入，目前歐盟會員國除了西班牙、克羅埃西亞與波蘭外，都已簽署該協議。在協議生效條件上，須達到13個國家的批准或加入，且當中須包含法國、德國、英國，目前包含法國已有12個國家批准[4]。(編者按：截止2017年7月10日為止，簽署國家已達25個，請參考https://www.unified-patent-court.org/)

UPC審理流程之規劃

在UPC審理流程之規劃上，根據「UPC協議」第15[5]、16[6]、19條[7]，及附件一第4(1)條[8]之規定，作為審理主體之法官有六年任期，為因應專利之專業性，設有「技術背景法官」，且在任命上需確保法官涵蓋各個技術領域，並建立法官之訓練架構，包括專業、法律、語言之訓練，並提供法官交換意見及討論法律見解之平台，以確保裁判一致性。

設置UPC最困難之處在於涉及各國主權的問題，因為在某種程度上，UPC要求各國將其一部份的司法權讓渡出來。為解決此一敏感問題，據「An Enhanced European Patent System」簡介指出，UPC之性質應該解釋為締約國共同使用之法院，與各國之國家法院性質相同。也因此UPC在審理的實體法源上，須受到歐盟法及歐盟法院 (Court of Justice of the European Union) 見解之拘束。在程序法方面，則以UPC協議為基礎，並制定「統合專利法院程序規則」（Preliminary set of provisions for the Rules of Procedure ("Rules”) of the Unified Patent Court；以下簡稱「UPC」程序規則）[9]。另外附帶一提，根據統合專利法院網站2016年11月刊登之報導，引述英國財政部商務大臣Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG與英國智慧財產局共同發表的新聞，指出英國在UPC協議之批准上閃綠燈[10]，可以思考的是英國脫歐後如果批准UPC協議，將如何處理審理中實體法源的問題，在本文脈絡下，由於英國過去在法規上已有所統合，所以短期內法規較沒有需要跨越的門檻；但長期而言，英國與歐盟間關於脫歐談判在此議題處理上仍值得注意。

在法院審理架構方面，根據UPC協議第73條[11]規定有兩審，須在收到一審判決通知兩個月內提起上訴，皆就事實及法律問題進行審理。但在二審時，若要提出新事實及證據則有所限制，僅限於在合理情況下，不能預期當事人在一審時能提出者。一審法院分為「地方或區域分支法院」（Local division,  Regional division）及「中央分支法院」(Central division)。地方分支法院係指締約國請求設立之UPC一審法院，而區域分支法院則為二個以上之締約國請求就該等區域設立之UPC一審法院。而一審中央分支法院分別設在倫敦、巴黎、慕尼黑等三地，在技術專業領域有其分工；由於三個中央分支法院就專利之技術領域有所劃分，因此像撤銷或非侵權等需要全面技術領域考量案件，會交由於中央分支法院審理；而侵權事件則交由地方或區域分支UPC一審法院審理[12]。

關於證據之取得、調查上特殊之處在於，為求發現真實，UPC協議第60(3)條[13]賦予法院有調查處所的權限，只要當事人提出足夠及有力證據，在程序中或程序進行前皆可發動。在證據審理上，為兼顧訴訟之效率，根據「UPC」程序規則草案第175條第1項[14]，就欲提供證詞證據者，須先提出書面之證人陳述或其摘要。且根據UPC協議第53條第2項[15]，「就證人及專家之質疑之程序，由法院掌握，且以必要為限」，即就程序之審理給予法院高度之權限，以達到證據審理之經濟性，與我國之爭點整理程序相當。

關於程序之終結、再審及執行上，根據協議第79[16]、81[17]、82[18]條規定，當事人可以在程序進行之任何時候，除專利之撤銷或限制事件不得和解外，可經法院核定透過和解終結。法院判決在任何締約國皆有執行之效力，且受到執行發生地之締約國法律所管，執行情形也與該締約國之判決相同。在終局判決做成後請求再審，僅限於決定性事實在法院判決時所不知、以國家法院做成終局判決認定構成刑事犯罪為基礎，或有程序瑕疵。該再審請求，須在判決做成十年內提出，但不得在發現新事實或程序瑕疵兩個月後提出；該再審請求原則上不能停止原終局裁判之效力。

UPC收費規劃

在UPC之費用規劃上，根據UPC協議第36條第3項[19]所規定，有「固定費用」與「以訴訟標的價值為基礎預先規劃的費用」（本文稱為「加計費用」）。加計費用為在固定費用上再往上加之費用，並限於與侵權、損害賠償有關之請求[20]。例如，一審就侵權訴訟、侵權抗辯、宣告未侵權事件、給予權利認證之補償訴訟 (Action for compensation for license of right)，固定費用需要一萬一千歐元 （詳如表一）。

表一、UPC之相關收費    

資料來源：UPC籌備委員會，2016年2月25日

一審案件在侵權、損賠訴訟上，若訴訟標的價值在五十萬歐元（包含）以下者，不會另收加計費用；若超過五十萬歐元，則根據不同區間收取加計收費，訴訟費用超過五千萬歐元者，其加計費用以三十二萬五千歐元為上限（詳見表二）。

表二. 一審侵權、損賠訴訟之加計收費標準

資料來源：UPC籌備委員會，2016年2月25日
註：第一組約加計標的金額區間最高額之千分之三點五，第二組約為千分之六點五，第三組約為千分之五。第四組就超過五千萬者，加計費用以三十二萬五千歐元為限。

至於，UPC二審法院之訴訟費用規劃上，原則與一審法院相同。

針對小型及微型企業，UPC另有減輕其負擔之規劃，小型與微型企業可請求只繳納所需費用的百分之六十。但在法院審理該企業之財務能力後，若發現只繳交百分之六十費用不合比例，或者該企業所提出之資料不實，法院可以要求另外繳交訴訟費用。此額外費用之裁定，可以上訴第二審。

此外，若當事人同意由獨任法官(Single Judge)進行審理、程序中撤回訴訟、或是達成和解，其固定費用及加值費用還有「退費」機制。如果有事實證明該程序費用影響到當事人企業的存續，則可能會退還全部或一部分之程序費用。UPC法院會考量請求退費之當事人之程序行為 (procedural behavior)，並給予對造聽審之機會；若因此退費決定受到不利影響之人，也可以提出上訴。

根據UPC協議第69條第1項[21]之規定，勝訴方向敗訴方請求負擔其訴訟成本，該請求數額設有上限，但可基於衡平法則而有所調整，也就是所謂的「可回收訴訟成本之天花板」制度。此制度主要受到下列原則支配：第一是訴訟代理費用之天花板設計，第二是需合理且合比例，第三是符合衡平法則。第二跟第三個原則，主要由法官根據個案進行裁量。而「訴訟代理費用天花板」之制度設計（例如律師費用），主要根據訴訟標的之金額，決定最高可請求之訴訟代理費用，並以兩百萬歐元為請求訴訟代理費用的上限。而法院在考量程序使用多種語言、當事人經濟能力、負擔方如是微型、中小型企業、自然人等是否威脅到其存在下，也可以提高或降低訴訟代理成本之回收。

UPC制度之過渡時期

據UPC協議第83條文[22]規定，從協議生效開始起算七年內，是UPC制度之過渡期間，其中法院管轄有特殊規劃的選擇機制，現說明如下。

在說明UPC選擇機制之前，先簡單介紹一下歐盟單一專利制度（Unitary Patent，UP）。一般歐洲專利（European Patent，EP）是照歐洲專利公約（European Patent Convention，EPC）的規定，僅係在申請窗口上統一，然而所取得的專利權並非「單一」的權利，只是有一個單一的申請窗口而已；如果權利人希望在多個歐洲國家取得專利權，則必須個別指定進入國。由於專利權分散在數個國家，因此也必須支付各別專利局所要求的維護費用。此外，在訴訟救濟上，EP也面臨多重、多國程序的問題。以上種種因素，促使了歐盟發展UP及UPC的決心。

至於UP取得方面，在前端的申請程序與EP相同，按規劃是由歐洲專利局 (EPO) 審查及公告其取得EP，只不過在EP公告日起算一個月內，專利權人必須決定是否要申請單一效力 (Unitary Effect)以取得UP。如未在規定時間內提出單一效力申請者，則最終僅取得EP。

此外，在UPC The Select Committee 和The Preparatory Committee出版的「An Enhanced European Patent System」簡介中，將前述之一般EP稱為傳統歐洲專利 (classical European Patent，傳統EP)。

本文所介紹的UPC所管轄的範圍，並不限於UP，也包括了在UPC協議締約國有效的「傳統EP」。不過，根據UPC協議第83條之規定，針對傳統EP部分，在過渡期間，其侵權或撤銷訴訟，或者有關補充性保護之認證的侵權或無效訴訟，仍然可在國家法院或其他有管轄權之國家部門提出。也就是說，針對傳統EP提出訴訟的人，可以選擇在專利有效的個別國家法院提起訴訟，亦可選擇向UPC提起訴訟。然而，如為取得單一效力之UP，則僅能在UPC提起訴訟。

在此過渡期間，可選擇法院之傳統 EP擁有者，亦可選擇退出 (opt out) UPC之專屬管轄。也就是說，讓傳統EP擁有者針對其專利有關的訴訟，可以完全排除UPC之管轄。例如，在有第三者爭執其專利效力時，因為該專利權人已經預先排除UPC的管轄，因此第三者僅能在國家法院提起訴訟。

根據UPC條約83條規定，有關傳統EP之訴訟，除非專利訴訟已經在UPC提出，否則EP之申請人或擁有者，其係在過渡期間期滿之前取得或申請EP者，以及補充性保護認證的持有人，均有機會選擇完全退出UPC之專屬管轄，而不會因為原告選擇在UPC提出專利訴訟，而使UPC取得管轄權。選擇退出的程序，僅需在過渡期滿之一個月前向書記處提出退出通知，在其通知到達書記處時即時生效。且除非有關專利之訴訟已經在國家法院提出，EP的擁有者或申請人，或者補充性保護認證之持有人，其啟用退出機制者，可以在任何時間撤回其退出，在其撤回退出通知到達書記處時即時生效。

在UPC協議生效五年後，根據UPC協議第11條[23]所設立之UPC行政委員會 (The Administrative Committee) 需調查仍在國家法院提出侵權、撤銷訴訟或宣告無效訴訟的數量，並要諮詢使用此專利系統之人士，以了解其背後的原因，在諮詢民意及法院意見的基礎下，行政委員會可決定延長此過渡期間，但以七年為上限。

UPC透過專業背景之法官、中央法院分工以及證據審理規劃上追求效率，並且透過法官訓練及研討會之舉辦，期望能促進裁判之一致性，並建立證據保全與調查的制度以兼顧發現真實。而在UPC協議上，現階段雖限於歐盟國家方可加入，不過筆者認為，只要在實體法上願意受到歐盟法拘束，以及適用統合法院的程序規則，未來仍有可能進一步擴展到非歐盟之國家。至於UPC在生效、開始運作後之發展，仍有待繼續觀察。

備註

1. UnifiedPatent Court. “UPC – Timetable Update –June 2017.”https://www.unified-patent-court.org/news/case-management-system.(07 June 2017)  
2. Christopher J.Harnett, Amanda F. Wieker, The EU Unitary Patent and UnifiedPatent Court: Simplicity and Standardization, Challenge, and Opportunity, Intellectual Property &Technology Law Journal (2013)
3. Unified Patent Court.“An Enhanced European Patent System” https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/enhanced-european-patent-system.pdf
4. European Council. 2017.“Ratification Details.” http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/agreements-conventions/agreement/?aid=2013001. Latest update 11 April 2017.
5. UPC agreement §15(“Eligibility criteria for the appointment of judges(1) The Court shall compriseboth legally qualified judges and technically qualified judges. Judges shallensure the highest standards of competence and shall have proven experience inthe field of patent litigation.(2) Legally qualified judges shall possess thequalifications required for appointment to judicial offices in a ContractingMember State.(3) Technically qualified judges shall have a university degreeand proven expertise in a field of technology. They shall also have provenknowledge of civil law and procedure relevant in patent litigation.”).
6. UPC agreement §16(“Appointment procedure(1) The Advisory Committee shall establish a list of themost suitable candidates to be appointed as judges of the Court, in accordancewith the Statute.(2) On the basis of that list, the Administrative Committeeshall appoint the judges of the Court acting by common accord.(3) Theimplementing provisions for the appointment of judges are set out in theStatute.”).
7. UPC agreement §19("Training framework(1) A training framework for judges, the details ofwhich are set out in the Statute, shall be set up in order to improve andincrease available patent litigation expertise and to ensure a broad geographicdistribution of such specific knowledge and experience. The facilities for thatframework shall be situated in Budapest.(2) The training framework shall inparticular focus on:(a) internships in national patent courts or divisions ofthe Court of First Instance hearing a substantial number of patent litigationcases;(b) improvement of linguistic skills;(c) technical aspects of patentlaw;(d) the dissemination of knowledge and experience in civil procedure fortechnically qualified judges;(e) the preparation of candidate-judges.(3) Thetraining framework shall provide for continuous training. Regular meetingsshall be organised between all judges of the Court in order to discussdevelopments in patent law and to ensure the consistency of the Court's caselaw.”).
8. ANNEX I: STATUTE OFUNIFIED PATENT COURT §4(1)( ” (1) Judges shall be appointed for a term of sixyears, beginning on the date laid down in the instrument of appointment. Theymay be re-appointed.”).
9. 18th draft of 19 Octorber 2015.
10. Intellectual Property Office andBaroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG. 2016, November. “UK signals green light to Unified Patent Court Agreement.”  https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-signals-green-light-to-unified-patent-court-agreement . Latest update 11 April 2017.
11. UPC agreement §73(“(1) An appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance may be broughtbefore the Court of Appeal by any party which has been unsuccessful, in wholeor in part, in its submissions, within two months of the date of thenotification of the decision.” (2) An appeal against an order of the Court ofFirst Instance may be brought before the Court of Appeal by any party which hasbeen unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions: (a) for the ordersreferred to in Articles 49(5), 59 to 62 and 67 within 15 calendar days of thenotification of the order to the applicant ; (b)for other orders than theorders referred to in point (a):(i) together with the appeal against thedecision, or(ii) where the Court grants leave to appeal, within 15 days of thenotification of the Court's decision to that effect. (3) The appeal against adecision or an order of the Court of First Instance may be based on points oflaw and matters of fact.(4) New facts and new evidence may only be introducedin accordance with the Rules of Procedure and where the submission thereof bythe party concerned could not reasonably have been expected during proceedingsbefore the Court of First Instance.).
12. The Select CommitteeThe Preparatory Committee. “An Enhanced European Patent System.”(download fromPC homepage: https://www.unified-patent-court.org. ).
13. UPC agreement §60(3)( “(3) The Court may, even before the commencement of proceedings on the meritsof the case, at the request of the applicant who has presented evidence tosupport the claim that the patent has been infringed or is about to beinfringed, order the inspection of premises. Such inspection of premises shallbe conducted by a person appointed by the Court in accordance with the Rules ofProcedure.”).
14. Preliminary set of provisions for theRules of Procedure ("Rules”) of the Unified Patent Court§175Written witness statement ( “1. A party seeking to offer witness evidenceshall lodge a written witness statement or a written summary of the evidence tobe given. 2. A written witness statement shall be signed by the witness andshall include a statement of the witness that he is aware of his obligation totell the truth and of his liability under applicable national law in the eventof any breach of this obligation. The statement shall set out the language inwhich the witness shall give oral evidence, if necessary.3. The written witnessstatement or written summary of the evidence to be given shall set out: (a) anycurrent or past relationship between the witness and the party offering theevidence; and (b) any actual or potential conflict of interest that may affectthe impartiality of the witness.”).
15. UPC agreement §53(2)(“(2) The Rules of Procedure shall govern the procedure for taking suchevidence. Questioning of witnesses and experts shall be under the control ofthe Court and be limited to what is necessary.”).
16. UPC agreement §79(“The parties may, at any time in the course of proceedings, conclude their caseby way of settlement, which shall be confirmed by a decision of the Court. Apatent may not be revoked or limited by way of settlement.”).
17. UPC agreement §81(“(1) A request for rehearing after a final decision of the Court mayexceptionally be granted by the Court of Appeal in the followingcircumstances:(a) on discovery of a fact by the party requesting the rehearing,which is of such a nature as to be a decisive factor and which, when thedecision was given, was unknown to the party requesting the rehearing; suchrequest may only be granted on the basis of an act which was held, by a finaldecision of a national court, to constitute a criminal offence; or (b) in theevent of a fundamental procedural defect, in particular when a defendant whodid not appear before the Court was not served with the document initiating theproceedings or an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way asto enable him to arrange for the defence. (2) A request for a rehearing shallbe filed within 10 years of the date of the decision but not later than twomonths from the date of the discovery of the new fact or of the proceduraldefect. Such request shall not have suspensive effect unless the Court ofAppeal decides otherwise. (3) If the request for a rehearing is well-founded,the Court of Appeal shall set aside, in whole or in part, the decision underreview and re-open the proceedings for a new trial and decision, in accordancewith the Rules of Procedure. (4) Persons using patents which are thesubject-matter of a decision under review and who act in good faith should beallowed to continue using such patents.”).
18. UPC agreement §82(“(1) Decisions and orders of the Court shall be enforceable in any ContractingMember State. An order for the enforcement of a decision shall be appended tothe decision by the Court. (2) Where appropriate, the enforcement of a decisionmay be subject to the provision of security or an equivalent assurance toensure compensation for any damage suffered, in particular in the case ofinjunctions. (3) Without prejudice to this Agreement and the Statute,enforcement procedures shall be governed by the law of the Contracting MemberState where the enforcement takes place. Any decision of the Court shall beenforced under the same conditions as a decision given in the ContractingMember State where the enforcement takes place.”).
19. UPC agreement §36(3)(“(3) Court fees shall be fixed by theAdministrative Committee. They shall consist of a fixed fee, combined with avalue-based fee above a pre-defined ceiling. The Court fees shall be fixedat such a level as to ensure a right balance between the principle of fairaccess to justice, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises,micro-entities, natural persons, non-profit organisations, universities andpublic research organisations and an adequate contribution of the parties forthe costs incurred by the Court, recognising the economic benefits to theparties involved, and the objective of a self-financing Court with balancedfinances. The level of the Court fees shall be reviewed periodically by theAdministrative Committee. Targeted support measures for small and medium-sizedenterprises and micro entities may be considered.”)
20. Preparatory Committeefor the Unified Patent Court. February 25th, 2016. “Rule on Courtfees and recoverable costs.”
21. UPC agreement §69(1)(“(1) Reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred bythe successful party shall, as a general rule, be borne by the unsuccessfulparty, unless equity requires otherwise, up to a ceiling set in accordance withthe Rules of Procedure.”).
22. UPC agreement §83(“(1) During a transitional period of seven years after the date of entry intoforce of this Agreement, an action for infringement or for revocation of aEuropean patent or an action for infringement or for declaration of invalidityof a supplementary protection certificate issued for a product protected by aEuropean patent may still be brought before national courts or other competentnational authorities. (2) An action pending before a national court at the endof the transitional period shall not be affected by the expiry of this period.(3) Unless an action has already been brought before the Court, a proprietor ofor an applicant for a European patent granted or applied for prior to the endof the transitional period under paragraph 1 and, where applicable, paragraph5, as well as a holder of a supplementary protection certificate issued for aproduct protected by a European patent, shall have the possibility to opt outfrom the exclusive competence of the Court. To this end they shall notify theiropt-out to the Registry by the latest one month before expiry of thetransitional period. The opt-out shall take effect upon its entry into theregister. (4) Unless an action has already been brought before a nationalcourt, proprietors of or applicants for European patents or holders ofsupplementary protection certificates issued for a product protected by aEuropean patent who made use of the opt-out in accordance with paragraph 3shall be entitled to withdraw their opt-out at any moment. In this event theyshall notify the Registry accordingly. The withdrawal of the opt-out shall takeeffect upon its entry into the register. (5) Five years after the entry intoforce of this Agreement, the Administrative Committee shall carry out a broadconsultation with the users of the patent system and a survey on the number ofEuropean patents and supplementary protection certificates issued for productsprotected by European patents with respect to which actions for infringement orfor revocation or declaration of invalidity are still brought before thenational courts pursuant to paragraph 1, the reasons for this and theimplications thereof. On the basis of this consultation and an opinion of theCourt, the Administrative Committee may decide to prolong the transitionalperiod by up to seven years.”).
23. UPC agreement §11(“An Administrative Committee, a Budget Committee and an Advisory Committeeshall be set up in order to ensure the effective implementation and operationof this Agreement. They shall in particular exercise the duties foreseen bythis Agreement and the Statute.”).

Facebook 在北美智權報粉絲團上追踪我們