戴姆勒公司（現更名為賓士集團）於2017年對帝寶公司起訴，經臺灣智慧財產及商業法院認定帝寶公司侵害戴姆勒公司之設計專利權，而引起臺灣立法者對於是否制定「維修免責條款」的討論。除了立委針對專利法第一百三十六條提出修正草案外，智慧財產局也為此舉辦意見交流會，廣邀專家學者探討台灣是否應引進維修條款的議題。 關於維修條款的制定，目前立場未達一致。智財局基於保護專利權、創新立國角度反對該條款之制定，而汽車副廠業者及部分學者持肯定態度，希望擬定條款保障消費者選擇維修的權利及扶植台灣本土產業。本議題因牽涉利益層面極大，一方面是追求研發革新的高價值，另一方面又因台灣是外銷維修用零件大國，許多本土業者的利益恐因外國原廠蠶食鯨吞的訴訟策略，而面臨淘汰命運。這也牽涉到政策上的價值選擇問題，如何兼顧兩者或犧牲其中之一，應循序漸進、深思熟慮。 台灣仿效美國賦予設計權人設計專利權的保護，當設計專利權人藉由積極申請專利實現排除他人競爭的目的時，屬於不正當行為，依據公平交易法第四十五條，仍應受競爭法機關管制。然基於契約自由原則，專利權人有不授權給其他廠商的自由，也有排除侵害的權利，似不應受到競爭法的非難。本文藉由討論專利法與競爭法之間的界線，衍生至專利法在面對公平競爭秩序與消費者保護時如何取捨的議題，並提出立法建議。 ;The issue of the “repair clause” has been discussed in Taiwan currently, which was caused by the case “Daimler v. Depo” in Taiwan. Members of the Legislative Yuan proposed the revision of Article 136 of Patent Act. Intellectual Property Office held a forum to discuss the issue in 2021. The issue has not reached a consensus yet. Intellectual Property Office is opposed to the legislative proposal due to the goal of innovation. However, most of the parts manufacturer and some scholars support the proposal. They need the “repair clause” to protect fair competition and the benefits for consumers. The issue is complicated, for both positive and dissenting arguments are convincing. Solution of the issue depends on the policy. The car parts are the main exports products in Taiwan. What kind of policy orientation is more suitable for Taiwan? Research and development or fair competition and consumer protection? Taiwan protects design with Patent Act, like the U.S. If the patent holder excludes competitors through the practice of the design patent, Fair Trade Act may be breached. Yet, the patent holder has the right to decide whether licensing or not. Article 45 of the Fair Trade Act regulates the relationship between the IP law and competition law, which will be discussed in this thesis. The possibility of “compulsory license” and other resolutions will also be discussed.
