随着现代技术的发展，科技整合产品让消费者获得更为便利的使用体验，但相应地也使得产品维修的困难性和复杂性提高，再加上制造商对其产品售后市场的强力控制，使得消费者无法轻易取得维修资源。面对维修自主受制于制造商的困境，越来越多的消费者要求享有维护和修理自己产品的权利，并转向立法运动，希望透过维修权限缩制造商对产品的控制。目前维修权在全球的法律见解与定义尚未统一，大致可将其主张阐述为规范产品制造商朝向维修信息透明、维修零配件合理供应和永续产品设计的方面努力，以维护消费者自主维修权利。维修权的设立势必会对现有的知识产权框架造成冲击。但本文认为，知识产权法不应该成为阻止维修权实施的理由。现今在欧美积极立法的维修权，其正当性不只是停留在单独的规范层面，而是能在知识产权法视角下得到支持，并透过与知识产权保护相协调的逻辑来证明。 维修权所牵涉的法律规范十分广泛。例如要求制造商公开维修手册可能会涉及商业秘密，而削弱制造商对产品零配件市场的控制则可能会与专利权相冲突。本文将重点聚焦在维修权对专利法方向的调整，结合拟议维修权具体的制度细节，讨论专利制度是如何在维修问题上实现利益平衡。另外从反垄断角度切入，藉由分析台湾首个维修权相关案例—奔驰诉帝宝车头灯案，探讨独立维修商作为维修权实践手段被调整的合理性。最后藉由欧美对维修权的特别立法来检视这两大经济体在明确维修权规则时，对专利和反垄断逻辑的细化和落实。希望能对维修权的正当性和可行性进行更深入地了解，未来可作为我国消费者维修权理论之研究基础。

With the development of modern technology, technological integration allows consumers to obtain a more convenient product use experience, but it also makes product maintenance more difficult and complex. Coupled with the strong control of manufacturers on the after-sales market of their products, this makes it difficult for consumers to easily obtain repair resources. Faced with the dilemma of being restricted by manufacturers in terms of maintenance autonomy, more and more consumers are asking manufacturers to protect their rights to repair their own products, and are turning to legislative campaigns, hoping to reduce manufacturers' control over products through right to repair. At present, the legal opinions and definitions of the right to repair have not yet been unified around the world. It can be roughly elaborated as regulating manufacturers' efforts towards transparency of repair information, reasonable supply of repair parts, and sustainable product design, in order to safeguard consumers' rights to independent repairs. The establishment of the right to repair will inevitably have an impact on the existing intellectual property framework. However, this article believes that intellectual property law should not be a reason to prevent the implementation of the right to repair. The right to repair, which is currently actively legislated in Europe and the United States, is justified. It does not remain at the level of a separate norm, but can be supported from the perspective of intellectual property law and proven through the logic of coordination with intellectual property protection. The legal regulations involved in the right to repair are very broad. For example, requiring manufacturers to disclose repair manuals may involve trade secrets, and weakening the manufacturer's control over the product spare parts market may conflict with patent rights. This article will focus on the adjustment of the right to repair to the direction of patent law, and discuss how the patent system is changing in Achieve a balance of interests on maintenance issues. In addition, from an antitrust perspective, by analyzing Taiwan’s first right-to-repair case—Mercedes-Benz v. DEPO Headlight Case—we explore the rationality of independent repairers being adjusted as a means of practicing the right to repair. Finally, through the special legislation on the right to repair in Europe and the United States, we examine the refinement and implementation of patent and antitrust logic in these two major economies when clarifying the rules on the right to repair. We hope to gain a deeper understanding of the legitimacy and feasibility of the right to repair, which can serve as the basis for research on the theory of consumer right to repair in my country in the future.