A Study on the Evidence-Preserving Procedure in Intellectual Property Infringement Litigation

過去二十年來，是否應引進美國的證據開示制度(Discovery)，一直是學術上熱烈討論的議題。本文認為，相較於其他民事訴訟，智慧財產權訴訟常牽涉巨額資金，又注重時效性，對於證據開示的需求更為強烈。故本文著重探討於智慧財產民事訴訟制度中，是否應參酌美國立法例，引進證據開示制度。學者多認我國民事訴訟制度的「證據保全程序」與證據開示制度的程序目的、應用時點最為類似，故本文以證據保全程序為研究主題，探討其施行成效，以及相較於證據開示程序，是否有不足之處。 我國實務上，證據保全命令的核准率極低，歐洲在台商務協會及美國在台商務協會亦多次強烈建議我國能改善現行證據保全程序。綜合智慧財產法院判決，法院駁回證據保全聲請的理由可以大致區分為：將民事訴訟法第284條之「釋明」的標準定得極高；需有侵權事實，才具有民訴法第370條之「應保全證據之理由」；嚴格定義民訴法第368條第1項前段「滅失或礙難使用」；嚴格審核民訴法第368條第1項前段「急迫性」；增加第368條第一項後段所無之「毀損滅失之虞」要件；嚴格認定第368條第一項後段之「有必要」。本文於綜合學者見解後，對於法院不當見解提出建議，並期待法院於審核證據保全命令的聲請時，回歸立法目的，讓當事人能妥善利用證據保全制度，以達到早期取得證據、減少訴訟成本、釋出司法資源的目的。 統整完台灣實務現狀後，本文介紹美國的證據開示制度，並分析其優缺點，以更完整深入的分析我國是否有師法美國的必要。我國違反證據保全命令的制裁極弱，本文建議可參考美國制度，增加三種制裁手段；於證據保全類型部分，亦可增加兩種證據類型。期待我國能更為妥善的建制智慧財產民事訴訟的證據保全程序，以利權利人能更有效、迅速地捍衛自己權益，進而促進社會知識的發展。During the past twenty years, scholars have widely discussed whether Taiwan should introduce the Discovery procedure form U.S. Some opposition opinions state that the existing Evidence-Preserving procedure was built base on similar legislation reason and is used in primary litigation phase like Discovery is. This article examines the difference between Evidence-Preserving procedure and Discovery, and provides the possible modification of Evidence-Preserving procedure. Among different types of civil litigation, IP infringement litigations usually cost vast money and are time-consuming. From this point, I choose IP infringement litigations as target and analyze the demand of introducing Discovery procedure. Is the existing Evidence-Preserving procedure well-functioning thus we do not need a foreign system? Concluded from the verdicts made by Intellectual Property Court, the rate of permitting Evidence-Preserving Order is extremely low. European Chamber of Commerce Taiwan and American Institute in Taiwan have raised this question several times during the past few years. To provide some advices so that we can change this situation, I collect the rejecting reasons and divide them into different categories. Following the different types of rejecting reasons, I state the unreasonable parts and give suggestions together with scholars’ opinions. In conclusion, although we have Evidence-Preserving procedure in Taiwan, the practice of this procedure still has lots to improve. More than that, we can modify our system with advantages taken from Discovery, and built a more mature litigation procedure