學術產出-NSC Projects

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 美國新專利法中共同訴訟規定之研究:以涉台灣籍被告之司法判決為中心
作者 陳秉訓
貢獻者 科技管理與智慧財產研究所
關鍵詞 美國專利法; 共同訴訟; 2011 年專利法修正案; 美國發明法; 非實施個體
United States patent law; joinder of parties; patent law amendment of 2011; America Invents Act; nonpracticing entity
日期 2015
上傳時間 17-May-2017 16:08:49 (UTC+8)
摘要 在美國國會制定 35 U.S.C. § 299 前,少數法院會以侵害同一件專利為由而將不相干的被告合併在同一個訴訟。此吸引非實施個體到該法院進行訴訟。為解決此問題,國會希望透過§ 299(b)以廢除少數法院的實務。美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院在 In re EMC Corp.案中也要求對不同被告的請求權主張間必須有實際的關連,共同訴訟才得以成立。CAFC 提出六個因素供下級法院判斷何時可准許共同訴訟。但是東德州區地方法院主要以「使用同樣來源的零件」為判斷因素,而其他法院卻不准許競爭者的共同訴訟。特別是在手機技術的案件中,東德州區地方法院會因被告產品使用同樣的零件而准許共同訴訟,但其他法院會認為不同的手機因為有不同的作業系統而為不同的產品,進而不准共同訴訟
Before 35 U.S.C. § 299 was enacted, some minoritydistrict courts had permitted joinder of independent
defendants only because they infringe the same patents. That gave a great incentive to nonpracticing
entities to sue as many defendants as possible in one suit. To resolve this problem, Congress created § 299(b) to abrogate the minority view of joinder. The Federal Circuit in In re EMC Corp. also created a test requiring finding of “an actual link between the facts underlying each claim of infringement."The Federal Circuit provides six EMC factors for lower courts to determine permissive joinder. The Eastern District of Texas relies primarily on “the use of identically sourced parts"to find joiner, while other district courts have denied joinder of direct competitors. Particularly, in mobile phone technology cases, the Eastern District of Texas has permitted joinder only because the same hardware component is used, while other courts may find misjoinder only because mobile devices of one manufacturer's operational system are not the same as mobile devices of another manufacturer's operational system.
關聯 MOST 103-2410-H-004-214
資料類型 report
dc.contributor 科技管理與智慧財產研究所
dc.creator (作者) 陳秉訓zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2015
dc.date.accessioned 17-May-2017 16:08:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 17-May-2017 16:08:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 17-May-2017 16:08:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/109717-
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在美國國會制定 35 U.S.C. § 299 前,少數法院會以侵害同一件專利為由而將不相干的被告合併在同一個訴訟。此吸引非實施個體到該法院進行訴訟。為解決此問題,國會希望透過§ 299(b)以廢除少數法院的實務。美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院在 In re EMC Corp.案中也要求對不同被告的請求權主張間必須有實際的關連,共同訴訟才得以成立。CAFC 提出六個因素供下級法院判斷何時可准許共同訴訟。但是東德州區地方法院主要以「使用同樣來源的零件」為判斷因素,而其他法院卻不准許競爭者的共同訴訟。特別是在手機技術的案件中,東德州區地方法院會因被告產品使用同樣的零件而准許共同訴訟,但其他法院會認為不同的手機因為有不同的作業系統而為不同的產品,進而不准共同訴訟
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Before 35 U.S.C. § 299 was enacted, some minoritydistrict courts had permitted joinder of independent
defendants only because they infringe the same patents. That gave a great incentive to nonpracticing
entities to sue as many defendants as possible in one suit. To resolve this problem, Congress created § 299(b) to abrogate the minority view of joinder. The Federal Circuit in In re EMC Corp. also created a test requiring finding of “an actual link between the facts underlying each claim of infringement."The Federal Circuit provides six EMC factors for lower courts to determine permissive joinder. The Eastern District of Texas relies primarily on “the use of identically sourced parts"to find joiner, while other district courts have denied joinder of direct competitors. Particularly, in mobile phone technology cases, the Eastern District of Texas has permitted joinder only because the same hardware component is used, while other courts may find misjoinder only because mobile devices of one manufacturer's operational system are not the same as mobile devices of another manufacturer's operational system.
dc.format.extent 816279 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.relation (關聯) MOST 103-2410-H-004-214
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 美國專利法; 共同訴訟; 2011 年專利法修正案; 美國發明法; 非實施個體
dc.subject (關鍵詞) United States patent law; joinder of parties; patent law amendment of 2011; America Invents Act; nonpracticing entity
dc.title (題名) 美國新專利法中共同訴訟規定之研究:以涉台灣籍被告之司法判決為中心zh_TW
dc.type (資料類型) report