在專利法上，為了追求專利權人的保護及公益的維護，訂有專利強制授權的制度，如此的要求，也為我國專利法第76 條第1 項所承認，而為申請專利強制授權的事由之一。類似如此的強制授權規定亦於與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定(TRIPS)第30 條b 項訂有明文。然而，專利專責機關於進行是否准予申請人之申請之際，本身也是行政程序的一環，在專利法或專利相關法規訂有明文時，當然要適用專利法的規定，於專利法及其相關法規未有明文時，本來即應回歸行政程序法的規定予以適用。惟行政程序法的規定在解釋上也容有許多解釋的空間，是以，專利專責機關在決定時，應對「增進公益之非營利使用」之事由有充分的理解；而從行政程序正當性的角度觀察現行制度對於如此程序的進行，無論是「程序正當性」或「組織適法性」，也都有進一步檢討的空間。對此，本文也將於解釋論及立法論上，對此等核定的程序提出具體的建議，使我們將來運用或研修此等法制之際更為成熟。

In order to protect both patent applicants and public interest, we have the system of compulsory authorization in Taiwan’s Patent Act Article 76 (1), one of clauses to improve compulsory authorization. The similar clause is also rules in Agreement on Trade-Relted Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) article 30 (b). When the patent agency decides whether to give applicant patent for patents or not, it is still one of the administrative procedures. When Patent Law or relative rules do not rule the procedure, we need to apply the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). But when we apply the APA, we could have a lot of explanations. Therefore, we should actually understand the clause of “making nonprofit- seeking use of a patent for enhancement of public welfare”, and especially regarding “Global Interest”, this conception need to include the “Global Interest” .And observing the implementation from the view of Due Process, whether “due procedure” or “legitimate organization”, we have something to s ay. In this article, we provide some suggestions for the procedure of compulsory authorization in Patent Act from interpretations of law and policies of legislation, we hope it could make the practice better and allow the rules of patent Act to become more mature in the future. Let the rules in Patent Act more mature in the future.