作者簡介：
郭史蒂夫 歐洲專利律師
現任：
北美智權教育訓練處 ／歐洲專利律師
經歷：
- Bryers事務所 歐洲專利律師
- Bugnion SpA事務所 歐洲專利學習律師
- Notabartolo & Gervasi事務所 歐洲專利學習律師
- 歐洲專利局 實習生
- 英國牛津大學生物化學、細胞與分子生物系，生化碩士
- 英國倫敦大學瑪莉皇后學院，智財管理碩士
|
在過去的幾個月裡，我有幸曾與許多本地台商接觸，並詢問他們對於專利和一般智慧財產權（IP，Intellectual Property，下簡稱智權）的看法。我很驚訝地發現，其中有相當多的人認為專利和智權與他們無關，有的甚至會說，他們根本沒有發明什麼，因此對於專利與智權毫無興趣。
這個立場，似乎還蠻合乎邏輯的，也就是說，如果你並沒有改進任何技術，卻花錢去申請沒有用的專利（因為技術內容不具進步性，而沒有保護實益），就可能會是既昂貴及相對無效益的策略。但若你從此一觀點衍伸至完全無視於專利和一般智權的心態，進而相信它們與你的業務毫無關係，則是非常危險的想法。在我看來，這些台灣廠商需要了解他們因此可能會碰上的危險。
主要的危險是，當你侵犯了他人的專利或智權時，會導致您需支付昂貴的罰金或和解金。在大多數情況下，輕率忽視對方手上的智權，不是一個可以被接受的因應方式。此外，並沒有任何事物可以阻止一個從來沒有對台灣或東亞市場表現出任何興趣，也僅在外國市場從事商業行為的廠家，由於其所在當地市場的經濟衰退，因此下定決心必須要極大化的提高他們的營收來源。而只要他們在相關國家（包括台灣或中國）擁有智權，他們就可以針對當地公司，使用其智權，藉由授權協議或法院裁罰的賠償金來取得所需的營收。
對於這個情況，我在此向台商建議2個可以準備的因應戰略。
其一是台灣企業應該可以嘗試並產生自己的智權作為商戰的儲備。除了專利，還有其他形式的智權，諸如註冊設計，小專利，實用新型和「新型」專利，這些都是一些比較容易獲得、成本較低，但仍然擁有相同於專利之實際效果的智權。一個可靠的專利智權事務所，應該能夠就企業所擁有的一切選項，無論是在國內或國際，提供建議。台灣企業如此就可以使用自己的智權，通過提供交互授權或對攻擊者提起反訴，來保護自己免受攻擊。當然，前提是對方要對於在你的智權覆蓋地區開展其商業活動有所興趣。
另一個策略是等待任一智權持有人先採取威脅行動。在這種情況下，本地台灣企業可以檢視該智權持有者之智權，是否有一個堅實的基礎。要記得，徹查所有相關案件事實後，許多已授證的專利是能被舉發為無效的。一個可靠的專利智權事務所可以協助提供有關此些問題的建議，以及是否有其他選項可逃離該專利所造成的壟斷。這個策略總會帶有一些固有的風險 - 誰也不能保證該專利智權並不是100％的穩固，而任何建議方案始終基於概率，具有不確定性，但一個經驗豐富的專利律師應有足夠的經驗來準確地平衡這種風險。
這就是為什麼筆者會認為台灣本土企業需要有一個可靠的專利智權事務所來提供服務與建議的原因，即使他們似乎並不需要事務所協助其申請專利部分的服務。各位會注意到，我剛才講的是「可靠的」專利智權事務所所提供的意見，其間的差異可能是，若某本地台灣企業被發現犯有侵權行為，一邊的結果是它需要付出非常高的損害賠償/罰款/權利金，另一邊是它能夠毫髮無損的脫身走開。
About the Author:
Stefano John, European Patent Attorney
Experiences：
- European Patent Attorney, Bryers
- Trainee European Patent Attorney, Bugnion SpA
- Trainee European Patent Attorney, Notabartolo & Gervasi
- Internship, EPO
|
IP is more than just applying patents
Stefano John NAIP Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney
In the last few months I have had the opportunity to meet and enquire with a few local Taiwanese firms about their relationship with patents and IP in general. I was surprised to find that quite a few had no interest in patents and IP, some even going as far as saying that they did not invent anything and therefore were not interested in patents and IP.
This position may seem logical – if you do not have any technological improvement, spending money on applying patents that cannot be acted upon (because they are not technological improvement and thus not valid) may seem an expensive and relative futile strategy. To go from there to the approach of ignoring patents and IP in general and to believe that it will not concern your business is a dangerous approach to take. It seems to me that these Taiwanese businesses need to be informed of the possible dangers they run into.
The main danger is that you infringe some other party’s patent and IP, which could lead to an expensive penalty or settlement. Ignorance of the other party’s existing IP is not, in most circumstances, an acceptable excuse. It is also to be noted that there is nothing stopping a business that trades only abroad and has never shown any interest in the Taiwanese, or the East Asian market before, to decide that they have to maximize their revenue streams due to recessions in their more local markets. As long as they have the IP in a relevant country, and this could include Taiwan or China, they could then pursue a local firm using their IP to obtain revenues from a license or a court-sanctioned penalty.
I would suggest two alternative strategies for Taiwanese businesses to prepare for such a situation.
One is that the local Taiwanese firm may try and produce its own IP to use as a reserve. Other forms of IP exist apart from patents (registered designs, petty patents, utility models and “new type” patents) – and some of these are easier to obtain and cheaper and could still have the same practical effect as the patent. A reliable patent IP firm should be able to advise on all the possibilities available to the firm, both nationally and internationally. The Taiwanese firm can then use their own IP to defend themselves from the attacker by using the possibility of offering a cross-license or countering the attacker. However this requires for the other party to be interested in carrying out a commercial activity in the areas where the IP is covered.
The other strategy is to await for the threat of an action by an IP holder. In such a case, the local Taiwanese firm can then enquire whether the IP-holder has a solid case or not to proceed. It is to be remembered that many granted patents can be invalidated by a thorough investigation of all the facts in the case. A reliable patent IP firm can help advise on this and on whether there are any options to escape from the monopoly caused by the patent right. The second strategy always carries some inherent risk – one can never guarantee that the patent IP right is not 100% solid and the advise will always be based on probabilities, though the more experienced patent attorneys are experienced enough to synthesize this risk accurately.
This is why local businesses need to rely on the services and advice of a reliable patent IP firm, even if they do not seem to need it for application purposes. It will be noted that I have talked about the IP firm being reliable, for it is the quality of the advice that the patent firm provides that could mean the difference to the business between the local Taiwanese business being found guilty of infringement and paying a very damaging penalty/license or being able to walk away unscathed.
更多歷期精采文章，請參閱智權報總覽 >>
|
