dc.contributor.advisor | 馮震宇 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Fong, Jerry G. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author (Authors) | 李柏靜 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author (Authors) | Lee, Po Ching | en_US |
dc.creator (作者) | 李柏靜 | zh_TW |
dc.creator (作者) | Lee, Po Ching | en_US |
dc.date (日期) | 2008 | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 8-Dec-2010 17:52:51 (UTC+8) | - |
dc.date.available | 8-Dec-2010 17:52:51 (UTC+8) | - |
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 8-Dec-2010 17:52:51 (UTC+8) | - |
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) | G0095652012 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/49748 | - |
dc.description (描述) | 碩士 | zh_TW |
dc.description (描述) | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
dc.description (描述) | 法律科際整合研究所 | zh_TW |
dc.description (描述) | 95652012 | zh_TW |
dc.description (描述) | 97 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 為了專利法制現代化,美國、中國大陸與台灣均進行專利修法,並修訂損害賠償計算。本文試圖以三者修法目的為思考評析損害賠償計算之修訂,並類型化分析三者相關規範。本文探討美國司法實務所發展的分攤法則及整體市場價值法則,而在建立更有效率之專利制度的目標下,美國專利法第284條並不適合納入上述法則。本文歸納美國專利懲罰性損害賠償制度之三種認定故意的標準。第一,傳統的故意侵害論,Underwater Devices案「充分注意之確切義務」之標準為故意侵害設立了一個較低的門檻,比較類似過失。第二,Seagate案的故意侵害論,為客觀的輕率。第三,專利改革的故意侵害論,三種故意樣態下之客觀的輕率;但可能因此限制法官的裁量權。中國大陸在提高自主創新能力與建設創新型國家之知識產權戰略目標下,第三次專利法修正將於2009年施行。新專利法第65條將現行最高人民法院司法解釋規定的定額賠償提高到專利法層次,且提高法定額度。從訴訟成本考量,由法院定額不失為較經濟的方法;然而,此方法亦有可能會有因非根據證據而落入主觀判斷賠償數額的缺點。新專利法第65條並明訂賠償數額還應當包括權利人為制止侵權行為所支付的合理開支,惟其計量方法仍不明確。雖然新專利法沒有納入懲罰性損害賠償,於提高法定賠償額度與加重其他相關民事與行政責任之配套修改下,新專利法有提高侵權人金錢負擔的效果,應有較大的嚇阻功能,進而鼓勵創新。台灣在因應國內科技政策與國際規範發展,及配合智慧財產法院設立的背景下,提出專利法修正草案,其中建議現行專利法第85條新增「以相當於實施該發明專利所得收取之權利金數額為其損害」規定。然而,針對權利金的合理性及是否以合理權利金作為補償底限,修正草案並沒有明確規定。此外,修正草案建議刪除懲罰性損害賠償,以回歸我國民事損害賠償制度。台灣專利侵害民事訴訟的成本與賠償金額並不高,也沒有敗訴方負擔對方律師費用的規定,在專利侵害全面除罪化之後,懲罰性損害賠償對侵害人可能形成一種「實質上額外的風險」,而非「僅是一種商業上的成本」,因而有其一定的功能意義。以專利法促進產業發展的目的考量,若沒有相關配套措施,實可考慮繼續保留現行懲罰性損害賠償制度。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract (摘要) | For modernization of patent laws, the United States, China and Taiwan are undergoing patent reform, each amending its damages provision. This thesis categorized forms of damages calculation in three countries, and tried to analyze its amendment from the perspective of patent reform in each country. This thesis analyzed the possible impact of specifying the apportionment rule and entire market value rule in Section 284, 35 United State Code. In addition, three standards of willful infringement with enhanced damages were concluded. First, the traditional willfulness doctrine in Underwater Devices case is the affirmative duty of due care which sets a lower threshold of willing infringement that is more akin to negligence. Second, willfulness in Seagate case requires at least an objective recklessness. Third, willfulness in Patent Reform Act of 2009 requires an objective recklessness in three different conditions; such proposal may restrict the discretion of the court. With national intellectual property strategy to improve the domestic capacity of innovation and to build an innovative country, the third amendment to Patent Act of the People`s Republic of China becomes in effect in 2009. Article 65 in the new Chinese Patent Act codifies the statutory damages in the range of RMB 10,000 to 1,000,000, compared to the current range of RMB 5,000 to 500,000 provided by the Supreme People’s Court judicial interpretation. In the perspective of litigation costs, statutory damages award may be a more economic approach but subjective judgment could have implication caused by lack of factual evidence for damages calculation. Article 65 also codifies that the amount of compensation shall include reasonable cost for ceasing patent infringement by the right holder, however, how to measure the reasonable cost is not clear. Although the new Chinese Patent Act does not include punitive damages, the maximum statutory damages, other related civil liability and administrative penalty are increased. Such amendments may increase the pecuniary burden of the infringer and expect to lead to more deterrent effect on patent infringement and encourage innovation. In the context of international regulation change, national technology policy change and establishment of professional Intellectual Property Court, comprehensive review of Taiwanese Patent Act is ongoing. The proposed bill adds “equivalent amount of royalty for implementing the patent invention as damages” into Article 85 of current Taiwanese Patent Act. However, it is not clearly codified that a reasonable royalty must be justified and such royalty calculation is to set a floor for damages award. The proposed bill abandons punitive damages for willful infringement. In such proposal, the result of willful infringement may not be a substantial additional risk but only a cost of doing business, because the litigation cost and damages award are not so high, and there is no attorney fee award or criminal penalty in Taiwanese patent regulation system. Hence, reconsideration of retaining punitive damages is suggested. | en_US |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第壹章 緒論 1第一節 研究動機 1第二節 問題之提出與各國專利法損害賠償規範之因應 4第一項 美國 4第二項 中國大陸 8第三項 台灣 9第三節 研究範圍與限制、研究方法 10第四節 本文架構 12第貳章 美國專利法制對損害賠償之規範與計算 13第一節 引言-美國專利改革之背景與目的 13第二節 專利法制損害賠償之立法源由與演變 17第一項 專利法第284條 17第二項 立法演變-回復損失之澄清 20一、1790年:由陪審團估定損害賠償 20二、1870年:衡平下的雙重回復 21三、1946年:引入至少合理權利金 22四、1952年:回復專利權人的損失 23第三節 美國專利法制對損害賠償之計算原則 25第一項 損失之利益 26一、Panduit測試 27二、二供給者市場測試 30三、市場佔有率 31四、利益損失之計算 33第二項 合理權利金 36一、已確立之權利金 38二、假設性協商 40三、分析法 41第三項 分攤價值與整體價值 41一、分攤法則 41二、整體市場價值法則 43三、適用分攤法則之困難與困境 46第四節 美國專利改革對損害賠償之修訂 51第一項 2007年法案之建議 51一、明文化合理權利金之計算原則 51二、合理權利金之計算方法 52第二項 2009年法案之建議 57第五節 美國專利改革明文化損害賠償確定準則之思考與評析 59第一項 合理權利金確定準則之必要性 59一、以合理權利金計量損害賠償案件日增 59二、以合理權利金計量損害賠償的問題 60第二項 美國專利改革試圖提供明確準則 62一、2007年法案提供各種計算原則 62二、2007年法案納入分攤法則 63第三項 法院之裁量權 69一、2007年法案可能限制法官裁量權 69二、2009年法案提供守門員功能之條文 71第四項 是否解決現行問題? 73第六節 小結 77第叁章 美國專利法制對懲罰性損害賠償之規範與確定原則 81第一節 懲罰性損害賠償之立法源由與演變 81第一項 懲罰性損害賠償 81第二項 三倍損害賠償之立法演變 82一、1793年:至少三倍 82二、1836年:至多三倍 82三、1952年:現代損害賠償條文前身 85第二節 懲罰性損害賠償之確定原則 86第一項 故意侵害 86一、故意 87二、善意之抗辯與不利推論 89三、客觀的輕率 92第二項 倍數之決定 94第三節 美國專利改革對懲罰性損害賠償之修訂 95第一項 2007法案之建議 95一、明文化故意侵害為懲罰性損害賠償要件 95二、故意之限制 98二、未呈交特定證據之不相關性 99第二項 2009年法案之建議 99第四節 美國專利改革明文化故意侵害之思考與評析 102第一項 明文化故意侵害之必要性 102一、傳統的故意侵害論 102二、嚇阻過度的反效果 103三、現行實務的問題 104第二項 提供法官明確準則 107一、專利改革之故意侵害論 107二、具體化故意侵害的樣態 109第三項 故意標準 110一、三種故意標準 110二、故意標準的影響 112三、建議條文仍有不明確之處 113第四項 裁量之彈性 114一、從歷史解釋三倍損害賠償 114二、當損害賠償不足以完全彌補實際損失 115三、增加損害賠償額僅得適用於故意侵害? 116第五節 小結 117第肆章 中國大陸專利法制對損害賠償之規範與計算 120第一節 專利法對損害賠償之規範 120第一項 侵犯專利權與損害賠償 121第二項 賠償數額之確定 124第二節 確定賠償數額之方法 125第一項 按照權利人的損失 128一、根據專利產品減少的銷售量 128二、根據侵權人產品的銷售量 130第二項 按照侵權人的利益 132第三項 參照該專利許可使用費的倍數合理確定 135一、該專利許可使用費 136二、合理確定 136第四項 人民法院定額賠償 139第三節 中國大陸新專利法對損害賠償之規範 140第四節 新專利法損害賠償規範之思考與評析 145第一項 賠償數額按照權利人的實際損失為原則 145第二項 定額賠償之明文化 145一、司法實踐多由法院定額賠償 145二、定額賠償規範提高到專利法層次 147三、提高法定賠償額度 148第三項 制止侵權行為之合理開支 149一、賠償數額包括制止侵權行為之合理開支 149二、關於調查侵權行為之開支 149三、如何計入制止侵權之開支? 152第四項 懲罰性損害賠償仍未明文 154第五項 其他建議 157第五節 小結 159第伍章 台灣專利法制對損害賠償之規範與計算 162第一節 專利法對損害賠償之規範 162第一項 專利侵害與損害賠償 162第二項 損害之確定 163第二節 損害賠償之計算方法 167第一項 具體損害計算說 167第二項 差額說 170第三項 總利益說 173第四項 總銷售額說 176第五項 酌定說 177第三節 台灣專利法修正草案對損害賠償之規範 178第四節 損害賠償修正草案之思考與評析 184第一項 差額說之商榷 184第二項 增訂權利金為損害賠償計算原則 188第三項 刪除懲罰性損害賠償規定之商榷 193第五節 損害賠償計算之類型化分析 195第一項 損害賠償計算之類型 195第二項 損害賠償計算方法 201一、由權利人的損失計算 201二、由侵害人的利益計算 202三、以權利金計算 203四、由法院定額賠償 203第六節 小結 204第陸章 結論與建議 206第一節 結論 206第二節 建議 215參考文獻 217一、繁體中文 217二、簡體中文 219三、英文 220四、判決 221(一)台灣 221(二)中國大陸 222(三)美國 222五、網路資料 225(一)繁體中文 225(二)簡體中文 226(三)英文 227 | zh_TW |
dc.format.extent | 121222 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 350436 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 348260 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 327837 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 511043 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 668991 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 586331 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 575637 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 608822 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 348265 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 343863 bytes | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
dc.source.uri (資料來源) | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095652012 | en_US |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 損害賠償 | zh_TW |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 懲罰性損害賠償 | zh_TW |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 專利侵權 | zh_TW |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 侵犯專利 | zh_TW |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 故意侵害 | zh_TW |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 損害賠償計算 | zh_TW |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | damages | en_US |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | punitive damages | en_US |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | increased damages | en_US |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | patent infringement | en_US |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | willful infringement | en_US |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | damages calculation | en_US |
dc.title (題名) | 論專利侵害之損害賠償計算-─從美國、中國大陸與台灣之專利修法談起 | zh_TW |
dc.title (題名) | Damages calculation in patent infringement-perspectives of patent reforms in the United States, China and Taiwan | en_US |
dc.type (資料類型) | thesis | en |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 一、繁體中文 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1. 王千維,民事損害賠償責任法上因果關係之結構以及損害賠償之基本原則,政大法學評論,60期,1998年12月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2. 王文杰,嬗變中之中國大陸法制,2004年。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3. 何俞宛,智慧財產權間重複賠償問題之研究,世新大學法學院碩士論文,2007年7月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4. 李柏靜,評析美國專利改革法案-以提升專利品質為目的的思考,世新法學,2卷1號,2008年12月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 5. 李鎂,大陸專利侵權責任解析,智慧財產權,60期,2002年4月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 6. 周漢威,論專利侵權損害賠償之範圍及計算-專利權人所失利益之界定,銘傳大學法律學系碩士論文,2005年6月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 7. 馬維麟,損害賠償法之原理-我國最高法院歷年來判決之檢討與分析-,法學叢刊,161期,1996年。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 8. 張宇樞,美國與我國於侵害專利權損害賠償範圍之探討,科技法學評論,2卷1期,2005年。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 9. 張容綺,專利侵害損害賠償制度之檢討與重構—以美國法作為比較基準--,世新大學法學院碩士論文,2005年6月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 10. 梁實秋主編,最新英漢字典,1983年。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 11. 許忠信,從德國法之觀點看我國專利權侵害之損害賠償責任,台北大學法學論叢,61期,2007年3月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 12. 陳聰富,美國法上之懲罰性賠償金制度,收錄於陳聰富、陳忠五、沈冠伶、許仕宦合著,美國懲罰性賠償金判決之承認及執行,2004年12月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 13. 曾世雄,詹森林續著,損害賠償法原理,2005年10月,2版4刷。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 14. 曾陳明汝,兩岸暨歐美專利法,2004年2月,修訂再版。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 15. 馮博生、王仲,論侵害智慧財產之損害賠償方法,法律評論,59卷7、8期合刊,1993年8月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 16. 黃銘傑,專利侵權損害賠償訴訟「故意、過失」之要否與損害額之計算方式-評最高法院九十三年度台上字第二二九二號判決,月旦法學雜誌,128期,2006年1月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 17. 馮震宇,美國專利訴訟制度與程序要件,資訊法務透析,1995年8月號,1995年8月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 18. 馮震宇,論侵害專利權之民事責任與民事救濟,法學叢刊,161期,1996年1月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 19. 溫麗琪編譯,法律經濟學,Law and Economics,Robert Cooter and Thomas Ulen原著,2003年6月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 20. 雷雅雯,侵害專利權之民事責任與救濟,司法研究年報第23輯第2篇,2003年11月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 21. 熊誦梅,法官辦理專利侵權民事訴訟手冊,司法研究年報第23輯第4篇,2003年11月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 22. 劉尚志、王文杰、陳建宏,中國專利侵權損害賠償之實證研究,2008年全國科技法律研討會論文集,2008年11月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 23. 蔡明城,發明專利法研究,2000年3月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 24. 蔡明誠,專利侵權要件及損害賠償計算,2008年3月,初版3刷。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 25. 鄭中人,專利法規釋義,2009年3月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 26. 鄭中人,智慧財產權法導讀,2008年6月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 27. 羅炳榮,工業財產權論叢-基礎篇-,2004年6月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 二、簡體中文 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1. 卜红梅,我国知识产权侵权损害赔偿制度完善之探讨,新疆公安司法管理干部学院学报,83期,2001年。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2. 王学峰,论知识产权侵权引入惩罚性赔偿责任制度,北京航空航天大学学报,19卷1期,2006年。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3. 庄秀峰,保护知识产权应增设惩罚性赔偿,法学杂志,134期,2002年。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4. 国家知识产权局条法司,尹新天主编,新专利法详解,知识产权出版社,2002年3月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 5. 最高人民法院民事审判第三庭编着,曹建明主编,新专利法司法解释精解,2002年1月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 6. 温世扬、邱永清,惩罚性赔偿与知识产权保护,法律适用月刊,225期,2004年12月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 7. 程永顺,中国专利诉讼,知识产权出版社,2005年5月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 8. 程永顺,专利纠纷与处理,知识产权出版社,2006年9月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 9. 程永顺主编,知识产权裁判文书集(第五卷),2003年4月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 10. 程永顺主编,专利权纠纷案件法官点评,2007年2月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 11. 程宗璋,论惩罚性损害赔偿判决之适用,青岛化工学院学报,53期,2000年。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 12. 张爱军,对惩罚性赔偿之反对观点的评析,太原理工大学学报,21卷2期,2003年。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 13. 汤宗舜,专利法解说,2002年7月。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 14. 谢晓尧,惩罚性赔偿:一个激励的观点,学术研究,2004年第6期,2004年。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 三、英文 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1. Bensen Eric E. and White Danielle M., Using Apportionment to Rein in the Georgia-Pacific Factors, 9 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev.1, 2007. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2. Black Henry Campbell, Black`s Law Dictionary, Garner Bryan A. (ed.), 8th ed. 2004. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3. Blair Roger and Cotter Thomas, Intellectual Property: Economic and Legal Dimensions of Rights and Remedies, 2005. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4. Bloebaum Scott, Past the Tipping Point: Reforming the Role of Willfulness in the Federal Circuit`s Doctrine of Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement, 9 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 139, 2007. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 5. Chisum Donald S., Nard Craig Allen, Schwartz Herbert F., Newman Pauline, and Kieff F. Scott, Principles of Patent Law, 2001. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 6. Daniel B.D., The Right of Trial by Jury in Patent Infringement Cases, 28 Rev. Litig. 735, 2009. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 7. Das Kaustuv M., Willful Infringement, Waiver, and Advice of Counsel: A Sea Change at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 89 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc`y 853, 2007. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 8. Ferguson Brian, Seagate Equals Sea Change: The Federal Circuit Establishes a New Test for Proving Willful Infringement and Reserves the Sanctity of the Attorney-Client Privilege, 24 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 167, 2007. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 9. Landers Amy, Let the Games Begin: Incentives to Onnovatives to Innovation in the New Economy of Intelectual Property Law, 46 Santa Clara L. Rev. 307, 2006. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 10. Lewis Ian, “Intellectual property litigation, liability insurance, issues and solutions”, in Valuing Intellectual Property in Japan, Britain and the United States (Ruth Taplin ed.), RoutledgeCurzon, 2004 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 11. Love Brain J., Patentee Overcompensation and the Entire Market Rule, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 263, 2007. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 12. Merges Robert P., and John F. Duffy, Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials, 2003. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 13. Merges Robert P., Peter S. Menell, and Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property in the New Technology Age, 2003. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 14. Moore Kimberly, Empirical Statistics on Willful Patent Infringement, 14 Fed. Cir. Bar J. 227, 2004. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 15. Schwartz Herbert F., Patent Law and Practice, 2006. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 16. Schwartz Victor E., Kelly Kathryn, and Partlett David F., Prosser, Wade and Schwartz`s Torts, 2005. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 17. Sung Lawrence M., Patent Infringement Remedies, in Intellectual Property and Information Wealth, Volume 2, Peter K. Yu (ed), 2007. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 四、判決 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | (一)台灣 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1. 台灣高等法院90年度上字第738號 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2. 台灣高等法院93年度上易字第8號 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3. 智慧財產法院97年度民專上易字第4號 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4. 最高法院48年台上字第1934號判例 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 5. 最高法院52年台上字第2139號判例 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 6. 最高法院93年度台上字第2292號 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | (二)中國大陸 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1. 北京市第二中级人民法院,(2008)二中民初字第15043号 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2. 北京市第二中级人民法院,(2009)二中民初字第3436号 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3. 成都市中级人民法院,(2001)成知初字第13号 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4. 杭州市中级人民法院,(2000)杭经初字第20号 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 5. 重庆市高级人民法院,(2000)渝高法知终字第10号 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 6. 湖北省武汉市中级人民法院,(2008)武知初字第268号 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | (三)美國 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1. Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1964) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2. Beatrice Foods Co. v. New England Printing & Lithographing Co. 923 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3. BIC Leisure Prods. v. Windsurfing Int`l, 1 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1993) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4. Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1876) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 5. Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corporation, 543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 6. Cornell University v. Hewlett-Packard Company, No. 01-CV-1974 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2009) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 7. Coupe v. Royer, 155 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1895) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 8. Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelecs. Int`l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 9. Duplate Corp. v. Triplex Safety Glass Co., 298 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1936) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 10. eBay Inc v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 11. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 72 F.3d 857, 866, 37 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1995) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 12. Fromson v. Western Litho Plate and Supply Co., 853 F.2d 1568 (Fed.Cir.1988) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 13. Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120 (1884) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 14. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 15. Georgia-Pacific Corp., v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), modified, 446 F. 2d 295 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 870 (1970) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 16. Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 185 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 17. Hanson v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc., 718 F.2d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1983) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 18. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 19. In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 20. Jurgens v. CBK Ltd., 80 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 21. King Instruments Corp. v. Perego, 65 F.3d 941 (Fed.Cir.1995) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 22. Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 713 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 23. Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 24. KSR Int`l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 25. Lam, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp., 718 F.2d 1056 (Fed.Cir.1983) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 26. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 27. Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., 527 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 28. Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 29. Micro Chem. v. Lextron, Inc., 318 F.3d 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2003) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 30. Minco, Inc. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., 95 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1996) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 31. Monsanto Company v. Homan McFarling, 488 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2007) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 32. Nike Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 138 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 33. Oiness v. Walgreen Co., 88 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1996) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 34. Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works,Inc., 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 35. Paper Converting Machine Co. v. Magna-Graphics Corp., 745 F.2d 11 (Fed.Cir.1984) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 36. Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Co., 324 U.S. 806 (1945) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 37. Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1992) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 38. Riles v. Shell Exploration & Prod. Co., 298 F .3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2002) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 39. Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 40. Rite-Hite Corporation, v. Kelley Company, Inc., 819 F.2d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1987) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 41. Rude v. Westcott, 130 U.S. 152 (1889) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 42. Seymour v. McCormick, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 480 (1853) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 43. Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1991) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 44. Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 45. State Industries, Inc. v. Mor-Flo Industries, Inc., 883 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1989) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 46. Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. v. Dart Indus., Inc., 862 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1988) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 47. The Suffolk Company v. Hayden, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 315, (1865) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 48. Underwater Devices v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717 F.2d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1983) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 49. Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp, 236 F.3d 684 (Fed. Cir. 2001) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 50. Unisplay, S.A. v. American Elec. Sign Co., 69 F.3d 512 (Fed. Cir. 1995) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 51. Westinghouse Elec. Co. v. Wagner Elec. Co., 225 U.S. 604 (1912) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 五、網路資料 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | (一)繁體中文 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1. 郭土木,期貨交易詐欺及內線交易行為之探討(上),證管雜誌,2000年2月,http://web.fsc.gov.tw/Layout/main_ch/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=2259&guid=0f807f4b-67c4-4e4c-ad7f-bae3b9eb7832&lang=zh-tw,最後查訪日:2009/07/30。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2. 陳春山,不實財務報告之民事責任法律適用爭議,證管雜誌,2004年6月,http://web.fsc.gov.tw/Layout/main_ch/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=1139&guid=5c9cd53d-b24f-45dd-a559-6d7b5475a3f1&lang=zh-tw,最後查訪日:2009/07/30。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3. 經濟部智慧財產局,專利侵權修法相關議題諮詢會議紀錄,http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID=3294,最後查訪日:2008/11/30。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4. 經濟部智慧財產局(彙總),專利法修正草案公聽會各界意見及研復結果彙整表,http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID=3721,最後查訪日:2009/07/30。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 5. 經濟部智慧財產局,專利法修正草案,980526公聽會版本,http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID=3721,最後查訪日:2009/07/01。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 6. 經濟部智慧財產局,專利侵害鑑定要點,http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=819&guid=af253442-f923-4ee3-9606-a2f8e691806d&lang=zh-tw,最後查訪日:2009/04/16。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 7. 經濟部智慧財產局,專利侵權修法相關議題,97/10/31會議資料,http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID=3261,最後查訪日:2009/07/30。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | (二)簡體中文 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1. 中华人民共和国主席令第八号,http://big5.gov.cn/gate/big5/www.gov.cn/flfg/2008-12/28/content_1189755.htm,最后查访日:2009/07/30。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2. 全国人民代表大会,全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于修改《中华人民共和国专利法》的决定,http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/lfgz/2008-12/27/content_1465318.htm,最后查访日:2009/07/30。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3. 全国人民代表大会,专利法修正案草案全文及说明,2008年8月29日,中国人大网(www.npc.gov.cn),http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/lfgz/2008-08/29/content_1447388.htm,最后查访日:2009/07/01。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4. 最高人民法院,最高人民法院关于审理侵犯专利权纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的解释(征求意见稿),http://www.chinacourt.org/wsdc/index.php?id=361606,最后查访日:2009/07/30。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | (三)英文 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1. Act of July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 813,Historical and Rvision Notes, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t33t36+1577+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2835%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28284%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20, last visit: 2009/01/30. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2. An Act to promote the progress of useful arts, Ch. 7,1st Congress (April 10, 1790), in Statutes at Large, 1789-1875, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=19; last visit: 2009/06/01. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3. Cauley Richard, Patent Reform 2009: More on Damages, Patently-O, March 13, 2009, http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/03/patent-reform-2009-more-on-damages.html, last visit: .2009/06/30. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4. Crouch Dennis, Patent Reform 2009: Damages, Patently-O, March 3, 2009, http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/03/patent-reform-2009-damages.html, last visit: .2009/06/30. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 5. Dudas Jon W., Patent Reform: The Future of American Innovation, Statement of Jon W. Dudas Under Secretary of Commerce of Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, June 6, 2007, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/2007jun06.htm, last visit: 2008/11/11. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 6. European Commission, IPR Helpdesk, http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/documentos/docsPublicacion/html_xml/8_GracePeriodinventionLaw%5B0000004514_00%5D.html#N10178, last visit: 2008/8/31. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 7. Federal Trade Commission, To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy, 2003, http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf, last visit 2008/11/1 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 8. Gutierrez Carlos, Letter from United States Department of Commerce to the Congress, April 3, 2008, http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/letters/110/S1145Apr0308.pdf, last visit: 2008/11/11. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 9. House, House Report 110-314 - PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2007, September 4, 2007, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr314), last visit: 2008/11/11. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 10. House, HR 1908 PCS, September 11, 2007, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110rhNK3v::, last visit: 2008/11/11. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 11. Ladas & Parry LLP, A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States, http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html, last visit: 2008/11/11. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 12. Leahy Patrick and Hatch Orrin, Meaningful Patent Reform, The Washington Time, February 15, 2008, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/15/meaningful-patent-reform/, last visit: 2008/11/05 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 13. Lemley Mark A. and Shapiro Carl, Patent Hold-Up and Royalty Stacking, Competition Policy Center., Paper CPC07-065, January 10, 2007, http://repositories.cdlib.org/iber/cpc/CPC07-065, last visit: 2009/06/30. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 14. Lichtman Doug (host), Patent Reform: Damages, audio program regarding testimony given before the Senate, from the Intellectual Property Colloquium, hosted by UCLA Law School’s Doug Lichtman, http://www.ipcolloquium.com/Programs/7.html, last visit: 2009/07/01. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 15. Merrill Stephen A., LevinRichard C., and Myers Mark B. (eds), A Patent System for the 21st Century, 2004, 9-10, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10976, last visit: 2008/11/11. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 16. Michel Paul, Letter from Chief Judge Michel to Sens. Leahy and Hatch, May 3, 2007, http://www.patentsmatter.com/issue/legislation.php, last visit 2009/02/12. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 17. PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007 Patent and Trademark Damages Study, 2007, http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/CB9DF7557A7E45088525729500564C55, last visit: 2009/01/08 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 18. Rooklidge William C., Patent Reform Damages Provision Violates Seventh Amendment, Patently-O, March 15, 2009, http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/03/rooklidge-patent-reform-damages-provision-violates-seventh-amendment.html, last visit: .2009/06/30. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 19. Sandburg Brenda, You May Not Have Choice. Trolling for Dollars, The Recorder, 2001, available at Law.com; also available at http://www.phonetel.com/pdfs/LWTrolls.pdf; last visit 2009/02/08. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 20. Senate, S 1145 RS, January 24, 2008, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110o5gnpv::, last visit: 2008/11/11. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 21. Senate, Senate Report 110-259 - THE PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2007, January 24, 2008, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/2?cp110:./temp/~cp110mSUfk&sid=cp110mSUfk&item=2&sel=TOCLIST&hd_count=2&xform_type=3&r_n=sr259.110&dbname=cp110&&r_n=sr259&dbname=cp110&refer=&&, last visit: 2008/11/11. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 22. Senate, Senate Report 111-018 - THE PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2009, May 12, 2009, by Senator Leahy from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp111:FLD010:@1(sr018), last visit: 2009/06/01. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 23. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patents By Country, State, and Year - Utility Patents (December 2007), PTMT (Patent Technology Monitoring Team) patent statistics reports, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/reports.htm#by_type, last visit: 2008/09/11. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 24. Wienecke Nathaniel F., Letter from United States Department of Commerce to Senate, February 4, 2008, http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/letters/110/S1145020408.pdf, last visit: 2008/11/11. | zh_TW |