Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/134873
題名: 論專利訴訟之證據蒐集−以美國證據開示法制為借鏡
Evidence Collection in Patent Infringement Litigation: A Lesson from the U.S. Discovery System
作者: 黄新崴
Huang, Hsin-Wei
貢獻者: 沈宗倫
Shen, Chung-Lun
黄新崴
Huang, Hsin-Wei
關鍵詞: 專利侵權訴訟
證據蒐集
證據保全
美國證據開示程序
聯邦民事訴訟規則
智慧財產案件審理法
Patent Infringement Litigation
Evidence Collection
Perpetuation of Evidence
Discovery Procedure
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act
日期: 2021
上傳時間: 3-May-2021
摘要: 相較於固有有體財產權所生之民事訴訟,專利侵權事件因專利權屬無體財產權,權利範圍不易確定,又具公共財「無耗竭性」之性質;再加上高固定成本及低邊際成本所致之高侵權誘因,及侵害事證往往偏在侵害人一造等特性,往往導致專利權人就其專利權受侵害與否、如何受侵害,甚至是否受有損害、損害範圍如何等事實均欠缺必要或具體之認識及掌握,從而難以舉證,實現其實體法上之權利。\n我國民事訴訟法於2000年即已參考德國法制,擴大證據保全程序之機能,新增確定現狀型之證據保全,允許當事人在訴訟前就物之現狀或事實預先進行證據開示或調查,以釐清事實,並藉此促成當事人和解,避免進入本案訴訟;或縱進入本案訴訟,而能夠促進集中審理。再者,智慧財產案件審理法亦意識到專利權人在證據蒐集及保全上處於先天弱勢之地位,而就專利侵權訴訟之證據保全規定進行強化。然而,學界、司法實務界及產業界批評智慧財產法院未能有效落實立法意旨,甚至未能履行TRIPS協定所課予確保權利迅速、有效執行之義務,而認為我國專利侵權訴訟法制並未賦予當事人有效蒐集事證之管道,致使當事人間事證近用地位不平等,有損當事人之訴訟權。\n鑑於美國之專利訴訟制度及其強大的證據開示制度仍對於權利人團體有相當大之吸引力,且美國係各國廠商專利佈局之重要市場。本文擬透過比較美國證據開示(Discovery)制度,聚焦專利侵權訴訟脈絡下,證據開示制度之規範、實務運作與學說理論,進而探尋美國證據開示之起源、發展與運作實況,分析其有效保障權利人訴訟上證明權之關鍵,並透析其制度之利弊。\n最後,本文藉由比較美國法制所得之啟發,考量專利訴訟之特殊性,以宏觀且全面之視角,嘗試就我國專利訴訟證據蒐集制度應如何修正,甚或是否有必要於智慧財產案件審理法中增訂獨立的證據開示制度,提出建議,以期能對我國專利訴訟法制有所貢獻。
Compared with infringement claims dealing with tangible property, patent infringement claims were difficult to be proof, because of the reasons as follows: First, since the nature of patent right is to describe an abstract invention by words, and the limitation of words, the scope of the patent and whether the accused product actually falls into the scope of the patent exists ambiguity. Second, the intangible nature of patent rights makes the patent holder difficult to discover the infringement and enforces it’s right. Third, the evidences related to the infringing conducts and the damages were usually controlled in the hand of the accused infringer. Therefore, it is difficult for patent holder to prove the infringement and its damages.\nThe Congress has acknowledged the difficulties regarding the collection of evidences in patent infringement litigation and has stipulated the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act, which strengthen the mechanism of evidence collection in patent infringement litigation by expanding the function of the procedure of the Perpetuation of Evidence. However, academia, lawyers, and industries criticized the Intellectual Property Court for failing to effectively implement the legislative intent, or even failing to fulfill the obligations of the TRIPS Agreement to ensure the rapid and effective enforcement of rights. In short, the patent litigation system in Taiwan does not entrust the parties an effective channel for collecting evidence, which have resulted in unequal status of the access of evidence between the parties and undermined the litigation rights of the parties.\nIn view of the fact that the U.S. patent litigation system and its powerful discovery system are still quite attractive to right holder groups, and the US is an important market for manufacturers` patents in various countries. This article intends to compare the discovery system in the United States, focusing on the standard, practical operation and theoretical theory of the discovery system in the context of patent infringement litigation, and analyze the key factors of a powerful evidence collection mechanism.\nBased on the inspiration from the comparison of the U.S. discovery system, this article attempts to provide solutions for the modification of Taiwan’s evidence collection system in order to contribute to Taiwan`s patent litigation legal system.
參考文獻: 壹、 中文文獻\n一、 書籍\n1. 石志泉、楊建華,民事訴訟法釋義,1982年10月。\n2. 邱聯恭,司法之現代化與程序法,2001年10月。\n3. 邱聯恭口述、許士宦整理,口述民事訴訟法講義(三),2015年。\n4. 邵偉,中國大陸專利侵權糾紛處理實務,2版,2017年2月。\n5. 姜世明,民事訴訟法(下),4版,2016年8月。\n6. 姜世明,民事訴訟法(上),6版,2018年9月。\n7. 姜世明,民事證據法,2021年3月。\n8. 陳計男,民事訴訟法論(上),6版,2014年1月。\n9. 陳榮宗、林慶苗,民事訴訟法,1996年。\n10. 黃國昌,民事訴訟法教室I,2版,2010年9月。\n11. 楊崇森,遨遊美國法Ⅲ:美國法制的實務與運作,2015年1月。\n\n二、 專書論文\n1. 吳從周,遲誤準備程序期日、不預納訴訟費用與視為合意停止訴訟程序,載:民事法學與法學方法(四),頁311-343,2010年3月。\n2. 沈冠伶,摸索證明與事證蒐集開示之協力,載:民事證據法與武器平等原則,頁130-159,2007年10月。\n3. 沈冠伶,論新民事訴訟法中法官之闡明義務與當事人之事案解明義務,載:民事證據法與武器平等原則,頁1-21,2013年7月。\n4. 沈冠伶,證據保全制度—從擴大制度機能之觀點談起,載:民事證據法與武器平等原則,頁161-186,2007年10月。\n5. 姜世明,非負舉證責任一造當事人協力義務之內涵與界限─對於非負舉證責任一造當事人事案解明義務及文書提出義務之若干問題提示,載:民事程序法焦點論壇第二卷,頁1-70,2017年12月。\n6. 許士宦,戰後臺灣民事訴訟法學發展史,載:爭點整理與舉證責任,頁1-44,2012年12月。\n7. 陳石獅等,事證開示制度(Discovery)與發現真實,載:民事訴訟法之研討(五),頁80-138,1996年10月。\n8. 馮震宇,美國智財訴訟與證據保全制度,載:財經法新課題與新趨勢(三),頁63-100,2017年10月。\n9. 黃國昌,比較民事訴訟法下的當事人圖像─由審理基本原則、證據蒐集權及證明度切入,載:民事訴訟理論之新開展,頁1-78,2005年10月。\n10. 黃國昌,智慧財產案件審理程序之營業秘密保護─以「秘密保持命令」新制的運作為中心,載:許志雄教授六秩華誕祝賀論文集─立憲國家之課題與挑戰,頁815-836,2013年12月。\n11. 黃國昌,證明妨礙法理之再檢討─以美國法之發展為借鏡,載:民事訴訟理論之新開展,頁235-285,2005年10月。\n12. 劉明生,當事人事案解明義務之發展─以德國法與台灣法為中心,載:民事程序法焦點論壇第二卷,頁187-252,2017年12月。\n\n三、 期刊論文\n1. 王敏銓,專利就像一條河流:從流動性資源的畫界看財產的符號結構,台大法學論叢,47卷1期,頁63-124,2018年3月。\n2. 王銘勇,商業事件審理新制評析—當事人查詢、專家證人及秘密保持命令,全國律師,24卷3期,頁30,2020年3月。\n3. 朱家毅、黃紫旻、吳雅貞、陳志承,兩岸智慧財產法院及審判實務,智慧財產評論,6卷1期,頁143-210,2008年4月。\n4. 江孟貞、林威良,淺論不易取得專利侵權產品之侵害舉證問題,全國律師,21卷10期,頁18-26,2017年10月。\n5. 吳從周,我國智慧財產事件證據保全之裁判分析—以民國99年至100年100則智財法院判決為對象(上),台灣法學雜誌,213期,頁33-45,2012年12月。\n6. 吳從周,我國智慧財產事件證據保全之裁判分析—以民國99年至100年100則智財法院判決為對象(中),台灣法學雜誌,215期,頁33-47,2013年1月。\n7. 吳從周,我國智慧財產事件證據保全之裁判分析—以民國99年至100年100則智財法院判決為對象(下),台灣法學雜誌,217期,頁36-52,2013年2月。\n8. 呂光,智慧財產權案件證據保全實務,全國律師,17卷10期,頁36-45,2013年10月。\n9. 李素華,臺灣專利侵權訴訟之實務現況:崩壞與亟待重生的智慧財產生態系統,月旦法學雜誌,頁124-146,2019年6月。\n10. 李素華,從智慧財產法院105年度民商訴字第36號民事判決談專利及營業秘密訴訟之證據保全與證據開示,萬國法律,226期,頁18-26,2019年8月。\n11. 李素華,智慧財產訴訟之文書提出義務──以德國專利侵權訴訟之證據開示請求權及智慧財產法院103年度民專訴字第66號民事判決為中心,月旦法學雜誌,293期,頁189-210,2019年10月。\n12. 李素華、張哲倫,專利審查品質與專利訴訟的實證考察─臺灣智慧財產法院成立五年的數據回顧,月旦裁判時報,24期,頁94-112,2013年12月。\n13. 沈冠伶,智慧財產權保護事件之證據保全與秘密保護,臺大法學論叢,36卷1期,頁209-290,2007年3月。\n14. 沈冠伶,智慧財產民事訴訟制度之新變革,月旦民商法雜誌,21期,頁20-52,2008年9月。\n15. 沈冠伶,證明妨礙之法理在醫療民事責任訴訟之適用,臺大學法學論叢,38卷1期,頁163-216,2009年3月。\n16. 邵靖惠,商業事件審理法之簡析—兼評英美法專家證人制度,萬國法律,230期,頁9-18,2020年4月。\n17. 林玠鋒,依專門經驗法則而得事實之證明與鑑定中立性-以真品或仿品之證明為例,台灣法學雜誌,376 期,頁19-32,2019年9月。\n18. 林洲富,公證運用於智慧財產訴訟之保全證據-以智慧財產法院審理為中心,公證法學,15期,頁44-52,2019年8月。\n19. 林益民、賴伯翰、余明賢,智慧財產法院證據保全案例之實證及研討,全國律師,22卷10期,頁18-27,2018年10月。\n20. 邱筱雯、林志潔,鑑定和專家證人 制度之比較與對鑑識會計制度建構之建議,會計師季刊,262期,頁17-33,2015年3月。\n21. 姜世明,證據保全制度(上),全國律師,6卷7期,頁63-73,2002年7月。\n22. 姜世明,證據保全制度(下),全國律師,6卷8期,頁78-87,2002年8月。\n23. 姜世明,論民事證據程序中之摸索證明,成大法學,8期,頁43-108,2004年12月。\n24. 姜世明,淺談民事程序中之鑑定⎯⎯著重於實務見解發展及其問題提示,月旦法學雜誌,190期,頁19-28,2011年3月。\n25. 姜世明,證據聲明之具體化義務及摸索證明之許可性-評最高法院民事99年度台上字第591號判決,台灣法學雜誌,175期,頁35-49,2011年5月。\n26. 姜世明,再論臺灣部分民事證據法學理及實務之新開展,月旦法學雜誌,211期,頁148-177,2012年12月。\n27. 姜世明,非負舉證責任一造當事人之證明妨礙與協力(事案解明)義務-評最高法院105年度台上字第1021號民事判決,月旦裁判時報,70期,頁11-19,2018年4月。\n28. 張哲倫,專利之無體性質對專利侵權訴訟程序之影響,智慧財產權月刊,192期,頁5-20,2014年12月。\n29. 張哲倫,對智慧財產法院成立10年專利審判實務之總體觀察及建議,專利師季刊,30期,頁1-33,2017年7月。\n30. 張哲倫,判斷進步性應界定通常知識者之學理基礎-最高行政法院105年度判字第503號判決之啟發暨智慧財產法院之回應,月旦法學雜誌,282期,頁149-170,2018年11月。\n31. 張哲倫、李素華,專利法之經濟結構—經濟分析理論對於臺灣專利制度運作之啟發,月旦法學雜誌,234期,頁229-262,2014年11月。\n32. 張哲倫、李素華,專利民事訴訟申請專利範圍解釋之方法論──理論、主體、客體及標準,月旦法學雜誌,236期,頁190-209,2015年1月。\n33. 許士宦,證明妨礙,月旦法學雜誌,76期,頁41-52,2001年9月。\n34. 許士宦,文書之開示與秘匿,臺大法學論叢,32卷4期,頁275-361,2003年7月。\n35. 許士宦,起訴前之證據保全,臺大法學論叢,32卷6期,頁153-232,2003年11月。\n36. 許士宦,商業訴訟程序之新變革(下)-當事人主導型訴訟模式之邁進,月旦法學教室,214 期,頁31-44,2020年8月。\n37. 許曉芬,智慧財產訴訟中之文書提出義務-以法國專利侵權訴訟上資訊請求權為中心並兼評智慧財產法院104年度民專訴字第94號判決,月旦法學雜誌,292期,頁142-160,2019年8月。\n38. 陳皓芸,智慧財產訴訟中之文書提出義務─以日本專利侵權訴訟之證據開示與智慧財產法院103年度民專訴字第48號判決談起,月旦法學雜誌,294期,頁161-189,2019年11月。\n39. 陳瑋佑,民事訴訟上當事人之真實完全義務與事案解明協力義務的關係-對我國民事訴訟法第195條第1項之解釋論的初步反省,台灣法學雜誌,283期,頁9-25,2015年11月 。\n40. 陳瑋佑,民事訴訟上證據開示與秘密保護之比較研究⎯以專利侵權事件為例,臺北大學法學論叢,104期,頁137-215,2017年12月 。\n41. 黃國昌,營業秘密在智慧財產權訴訟之開示與保護−以秘密保持命令之比較法考察為中心,臺北大學法學論叢,68期,頁151-206,2008年12月。\n42. 黃章典,證據保全核准率—智財權保護指數,全國律師,17卷10期,頁2-3,2013年10月。\n43. 黃銘傑、高啟霈,據保全相關制度之探討—以日本法為借鏡,全國律師,17卷10期,頁4-17,2013年10月\n44. 楊崇森,美國民事訴訟制度之特色與對我國之啟示,軍法專刊,56卷5期,頁5-44,2010年10月。\n45. 熊誦梅,從智慧財產證據保全之實務運作談舉證責任分配之新思維,全國律師,17卷10期,頁27-35,2013年10月。\n46. 劉孔中、馮震宇、謝銘洋,專利證據保全及智慧財產權人相關資訊實體請求權之研究,月旦法學雜誌,226期,頁75-105,2014年3月。\n47. 駱永家,辯論主義與處分權主義,臺大學法學論叢,1卷2期,頁467-472,1972年4月。\n\n四、 碩博士學位論文\n1. 周航儀,我國智慧財產侵權訴訟之證據保全程序研究,國立臺灣大學法律學院科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文,2016年1月。\n2. 馬傲秋,美國專利侵權訴訟蒐證程序之研究,國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文,2008年7月。\n3. 楊佩文,美國聯邦民事訴訟程序法有關證據開示程序之研究—以電子化儲存資訊為中心,國立交通大學管理學院碩士在職專班科技法律組碩士論文,2009年12月。\n4. 劉玉中,民事訴訟上證據收集之研究,國立台北大學法學系博士論文,2005年7月。\n\n五、 法院裁判\n1. 最高法院94年度台抗字第876號民事裁定。\n2. 最高法院109年度台上字第2175號民事判決。\n3. 最高法院109年度台上字第2104號民事判決。\n4. 智慧財產法院99年度民專訴字第59號民事判決。\n5. 智慧財產法院100年度民專上易字第30號民事判決。\n6. 智慧財產法院103年度民專訴字第48號民事判決。\n7. 智慧財產法院103年度民專訴字第66號民事判決\n8. 智慧財產法院104年度民專訴字第94號民事判決。\n9. 智慧財產法院105年度民專訴字第62號民事判決。\n10. 智慧財產法院105年度民商訴字第36號民事判決。\n11. 智慧財產法院105年度民專訴字第53號民事判決。\n12. 智慧財產法院105年度民專訴字第62號民事判決。\n13. 智慧財產法院106年度民專上字第29號民事判決。\n14. 智慧財產法院107年度民專上字第7號民事判決。\n15. 智慧財產法院108年度民專訴字第19號民事判決。\n16. 智慧財產法院108年度民專訴字第19號民事判決。\n17. 智慧財產法院99年度民專抗字第1號民事裁定。\n18. 智慧財產法院100年度民專抗字第14號民事裁定。\n19. 智慧財產法院101年度民專抗字第1號民事裁定。\n20. 智慧財產法院102年度民聲字第3號民事裁定。\n21. 智慧財產法院104年民聲字第40號民事裁定。\n22. 智慧財產法院104年度民聲字第45號民事裁定。\n23. 智慧財產法院106年度民秘聲字第9號民事裁定。\n24. 智慧財產法院106年度民聲上字第5號民事裁定。\n25. 智慧財產法院107年度民專抗字第25號民事裁定。\n26. 智慧財產法院107年度民聲字第48號民事裁定。\n27. 智慧財產法院108年度民專抗字第16號民事裁定。\n28. 智慧財產法院108年度民聲字第16號民事裁定。\n29. 智慧財產法院108年度民聲字第31號民事裁定。\n30. 智慧財產法院108年度民聲字第32號民事裁定。\n31. 智慧財產法院108年度民聲字第37號民事裁定。\n32. 智慧財產法院109年度民專抗字第1號民事裁定。\n33. 智慧財產法院109年度民專抗字第9號民事裁定。\n\n六、 網路資料\n1. 台灣美國商會,美國商會2011年台灣白皮書,2011年,http://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9hZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yLzEwL1JlbEZpbGUvNTU2Ni81NDY0LzAwMTU1NTFfOS5wZGY=&n=MTDmmbrmhafosqHnlKJf5b2ZT0sucGRm&icon=..pdf(最後瀏覽日:2020年02月02日)。\n2. 台灣美國商會,2013年台灣白皮書,2013年6月,https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9hZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yLzEwL3JlbGZpbGUvNjc3OS8yNjczNS8xNmYxMGU4Ni0zNjYxLTQ1NmItODY3MC04ZDZiNDM0ZjkxN2IucGRm&n=d3DlhajmlocucGRm&icon=..pdf(最後瀏覽日:2020年02月02日)。\n3. 台灣美國商會,2016年台灣白皮書,2016年6月,https://amcham.com.tw/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016-AmCham-White-Paper.pdf (最後瀏覽日:2020年02月02日)。\n4. 司法院,司法院秘書長秘台廳民三字第 0990007212 號函,2010年4月8日,https://db.lawbank.com.tw/FINT/FINTQRY04.aspx?id=E,FE231211&ro=1&dty=E&ty=I000&tn=司法類&kw=秘台廳民三字第0990007212號函&opinion=&argument=&judgesort=&filter=(最後瀏覽日:2021年04月03日)。\n5. 司法院,建構專業效率、符合國際潮流的智慧財產訴訟制度—司法院召開「智慧財產案件審理法研究修正委員會」全面啟動修法程序新聞稿,2021年3月31日,https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1887-400084-df083-1.html (最後瀏覽日:2021年04月02日)。\n6. 立法院,立法院第4屆第2會期第15次會議議案關係文書,1999年12月,https://db.lawbank.com.tw/FLAW/GetRFile.ashx?LEID=5974&T=2 (最後瀏覽日:2021年02月03日)。\n7. 立法院,立法院第6屆第3會期第12次會議議案關係文書,2006年5月,https://db.lawbank.com.tw/FLAW/GetRFile.ashx?LEID=18979&T=2(最後瀏覽日:2020年02月02日)。\n8. 立法院,立法院第10屆第2會期第2次會議議案關係文書,2020年9月14日,https://lci.ly.gov.tw/LyLCEW/agenda1/02/pdf/10/02/02/LCEWA01_100202_00074.pdf (最後瀏覽日:2021年02月08日)。\n9. 自由時報,〈財經週報-綜合話題〉民事廳長:事實完整呈現 可促成和解,2019年4月29日,https://ec.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1284898 (最後瀏覽日:2020年12月03日)。\n10. 李淑蓮,訴訟不是辯論比賽 宜正確運用證據開示(Discovery)以符合公平正義,北美智權報,276期,2021年1月,http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/IPNC_210106_0702.htm (最後瀏覽日:2021年03月24日)。\n11. 李維心、汪漢卿、蔡惠如,智慧財產法院專利訴訟有效性及損害賠償之研究,智慧財產法院研究報告,2019年10月,https://ipc.judicial.gov.tw/tw/dl-2084-b1bdee9b878242a9ac0deabf3664283a.html (最後瀏覽日:2020年02月02日)。\n12. 陳駿璧、許正順、李莉苓、詹惟堯,司法院民事廳九十三年度日本督促程序、當事者照會暨參審員制度考察報告,司法院出國考察報告,2004年12月,https://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/JudLib/EBookQry04.asp?S=U&Y1=&M1=&D1=&Y2=&M2=&D2=&sn=民事廳九十三年度日本督促程序、當事者照會暨參審員制度考察報告&sa=&src=&kw=&sdate=&edate=&sname=民事廳九十三年度日本督促程序、當事者照會暨參審員制度考察報告&sauthor=&ssource=&keyword=&EXEC=查++詢&scode=U&seq=1(最後瀏覽日:2021年02月08日)。\n13. 智慧財產法院,司法統計,2021年,https://ipc.judicial.gov.tw/tw/dl-1934-769db0bfc65c4d15ba0273862cc50c23.html(最後瀏覽日:2021年02月03日)。\n14. 歐洲在臺商務協會,2016年建議書,2015年11月,https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9hZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yLzEwL3JlbGZpbGUvNjc3My8yNjcxMi9iODQyN2ZmNC0xYWY4LTRkNDMtYmIyZC1lYjcxMDMxMWIxYWYucGRm&n=5q2Q5rSy5ZWG5pyD44CMMjAxNuW7uuitsOabuOOAjS5wZGY=&icon=..pdf (最後瀏覽日:2020年02月02日)。\n15. 歐陽漢菁,高科技智慧財產訴訟之研究-以審前證據蒐集及調查程序為中心,司法院及所屬各機關出國報告,2007年9月,http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/JudLib/EBookQry04.asp?S=all&S=R&S=S&S=U&S=V&S=W&S=X&S=Y&Y1=&M1=&D1=&Y2=&M2=&D2=&sn=高科技智慧財產訴訟之研究+&sa=&src=&kw=&sdate=&edate=&sname=高科技智慧財產訴訟之研究&sauthor=&ssource=&keyword=&EXEC=查++詢&scode=U&seq=1 (最後瀏覽日:2021年03月30日)。\n\n貳、 英文文獻\n一、 書籍\n1. BABCOCK, BARBARA ALLEN, MASSARO, TONI M. & SPAULDING, NORMAN W. (2013), CIVIL PROCEDURE: CASES AND PROBLEMS, New York : Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.\n2. BATTAGLIA, ANTHONY J. (2019), DISCLOSURE AND DISCOVERY MANUAL UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, California Southern District Court, available at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/judges/battaglia/docs/Battaglia Disclosure and Discovery Manual Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.pdf.\n3. BENTHAM, JEREMY (1823), AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS AND LEGISLATION (A NEW ED. / COR. BY THE AUTHOR ..), London : W. Pickering, and R. Wilson.\n4. BESSEN, JAMES & MEURER, MICHAEL J. (2008), PATENT FAILURE: HOW JUDGES, BUREAUCRATS, AND LAWYERS PUT INNOVATORS AT RISK, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.\n5. CAROLINE, Q., GREAT BRITAIN. PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS. (1879), TRIAL OF QUEEN CAROLINE, Jersey City: F.D. Linn & Co.\n6. CONNOLLY, PAUL R. (1978), JUDICIAL CONTROLS & THE CIVIL LITIGATIVE PROCESS: DISCOVERY, Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center.\n7. FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER (2013), BENCH BOOK FOR U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGES: SIXTH EDITION, available at https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2014/Benchbook-US-District-Judges-6TH-FJC-MAR-2013.pdf.\n8. GLASER, WILLIAM A. (1968), PRETRIAL DISCOVERY AND THE ADVERSARY SYSTEM, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.\n9. GROSSMAN, BARRY L. & HOFFMAN, GARY M. (2000), PATENT LITIGATION STRATEGIES HANDBOOK, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.\n10. HAYDOCK, ROGER S., HERR, DAVID F. & STEMPEL, JEFFREY W. (2013), FUNDAMENTALS OF PRETRIAL LITIGATION, St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing.\n11. HAZARD, GEOFFREY C. & HODES, W. WILLIAM (1990), THE LAW OF LAWYERING, New York : Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.\n12. HUANG, KUO-CHANG (2003), INTRODUCING DISCOVERY INTO CIVIL LAW, Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.\n13. KIEFF, F. SCOTT, NEWMAN, PAULINE, SCHWARTZ, HERBERT F. & SMITH, HENRY E. (2008), PRINCIPLES OF PATENT LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS, St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.\n14. LANDES, WILLIAM M. & POSNER, RICHARD A. (2003), THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.\n15. MOORE, KIMBERLY A., HOLBROOK, TIMOTHY R., MURPHY, JOHN F. (2018), PATENT LITIGATION AND STRATEGY, St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing.\n16. NARD, CRAIG ALLEN (2008), THE LAW OF PATENTS, New York: Wolters Kluwer/Aspen Publishers.\n17. PAUL, GEORGE L. & NEARON, BRUCE H. (2006), THE DISCOVERY REVOLUTION: E-DISCOVERY AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, American Bar Association.\n18. SCHUMPETER, JOSEPH A. (1939), BUSINESS CYCLES: A THEORETICAL, HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CAPITALIST PROCESS, New York Toronto London: McGraw-Hill Book Company.\n19. SCHUMPETER, JOSEPH A. (1950), CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM, AND DEMOCRACY, New York: Harper & Row.\n20. SHREVE, GENE R., RAVEN-HANSEN, PETER & GEYH, CHARLES GARDNER (2013), UNDERSTANDING CIVIL PROCEDURE, Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.\n\n二、 專書論文\n1. Becker, Lawrence C. (1980), The Moral Basis of Property Rights, in J. Pennock & J. Chapman eds., PROPERTY, NOMOS XXII, (New York: New York University Press).\n2. Jefferson, Thomas (1813), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson (Aug. 13, 1813), reprinted in Merrill D. Peterson ed., Jefferson Writings (New York, N.Y. : Literary Classics of the United States, Inc.,1984).\n3. Lee, Emery G. & Willging, Thomas E. (2010), Litigation Costs in Civil Cases: Multivariate Analysis, in REPORT TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RULES (Fed. Judicial Ctr.).\n4. Locke, John (1986), Second Treatise of Government, in TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT (Canada: Broadview Press, 2015).\n5. Manning, William J. (1981), Report to the Bench and Bar, reprinted in 92 F.R.D PREFACE TO AMERICAN BAR ASS’N, FOR THE STUDY OF DISCOVERY ABUSE (1977).\n\n三、 期刊論文\n1. Becker, Lawrence C., The Labor Theory of Property Acquisition, 73 J. PHIL. 653 (1976).\n2. Brazil, Wayne D., Civil Discovery: Lawyers` Views of Its Effectiveness, Its Principal Problems and Abuses, 1980 AM. B. FOUND. RES. J. 787 (1980).\n3. Brazil, Wayne D., Views from the Front Lines: Observations by Chicago Lawyers about the System of Civil Discovery, 1980 AM. B. FOUND. RES. J. 217 (1980).\n4. Brown, Bruce P., Free Press, Privacy, and Privilege: Protection of Researcher-Subject Communications, 17 GA. L. REV. 1009 (1983).\n5. Burk, Dan L. & Lemley, Mark A., Fence Posts or Sign Posts - Rethinking Patient Claim Construction , 157 U. PA. L. REV. 1743 (2009).\n6. Cloud, Morgan, The 2000 Amendments To The Federal Discovery Rules And The Future Of Adversarial Pretrial Litigation, 74 TEMPLE L . REV. 27 (2001).\n7. Epstein, Richard A., The Utilitarian Foundations of Natural Law, 12 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL`Y 713 (1989).\n8. Epstein, Richard A., The Disintegration of Intellectual Property? A Classical Liberal Response to a Premature Obituary, 62 STAN. L. REV. 455 (2010).\n9. Garrie, Daniel B., The E-Discovery Dance for Patent Litigation: The Federal Circuit Tries to Change the Tune, WASH. J. L. TECH. & ARTS, VOL. 8, NO. 4, 487 (2013).\n10. Goldstein, Alan K., A Short History of Discovery, 10 COMM. L. WORLD REV. 257 (1981).\n11. Gould, James & Langenfeld, James, Antitrust and Intellectual Property: Landing on Patent Avenue in the Game of Monopoly, 37 IDEA: J.L. &TECH. 449 (1997).\n12. Harris, L. James, The cost of patent litigation study: Current status and future direction, Patent, 14 TRADEMARK & COPY. J. RES. & ED, 63 (1970).\n13. Hazard, Geoffrey C., Discovery and the Role of the Judge in Civil Law Jurisdictions, 73 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1017 (1998).\n14. Hughes, Justin, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property, 77 GEO. L. J. 287 (1988).\n15. Kieff, F. Scott, Property Rights and Property Rules for Commercializing Inventions, 85 MINN. L. REV. 697 (2001).\n16. Kitch, Edmund W., The Nature and Function of the Patent System, 20 J.L. & ECON. 265 (1977).\n17. Lafrance, Arthur B., Work-Product Discovery: A Critique, 68 DICK. L. REV. 351 (1964).\n18. Lahav, Alexandra D., A Proposal to End Discovery Abuse, 71 VANDERBILT LAW REV. 2037 (2019).\n19. Landsman, Stephan, The Decline of the Adversary System: How the Rhetoric of Swift and Certain Justice Has Affected Adjudication in American Courts, 29 BUFFALO L. REV. 487 (1980).\n20. Landsman, Stephan, A Brief Survey of the Development of the Adversary System, 44 OHIO ST. L. J. 713 (1983).\n21. Lemley, Mark A., Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding, 83 TEX L. REV. 1031 (2005).\n22. Marcus, Richard L., Discovery Containment Rudux, 39 B.C. L. REV. 747 (1998).\n23. Mitchell, Meade W., Discovery Abuse and a Proposed Reform: Mandatory Disclosure, 62 MISS. L.J. 743 (1993).\n24. Nard, Craig A., A Theory of Claim Interpretation, 14 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 1 (2000).\n25. Posner, Richard A., Intellectual Property: The Law and Economics Approach, 19 (2) JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES 57 (2005).\n26. Pound, Roscoe, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, 29 A.B.A. Rep. 395 (1906).\n27. Rader, Randall R., The State of Patent Litigation, 21 FED. CIR. B.J. 331 (2011-2012).\n28. Rich, Giles S., The Exclusive Right since Aristotle, Address at the Foundation for a Creative American Bicentennial Celebration (May 9, 1990), in 14 FED. CIR. B.J. 217 (2004).\n29. Rich, Giles S., The Relation between Patent Practices and the Anti-Monopoly Laws - Part II, 14 FED. CIR. B.J. 21 (2004).\n30. Rollins, A. D., The role of discovery in patent litigation, 52(5) J. PAT. OFF. SOC`Y 293 (1970).\n31. Scalia, Antonin Gregory, Dissenting Statement to Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 146 F.R.D. 507 (1993).\n32. Schwarzer, William W., The Federal Rules, the Adversary Process, and Discovery Reform, 50 U. PITT. L. REV. 703 (1989).\n33. Steinman, Adam, The End of an Era? Federal Civil Procedure After the 2015 Amendments, 66 EMORY L.J. 1 (2016).\n34. Sunderland, Edson R., Discovery before Trial under the New Federal Rules, 15 TENN. L. REV. 737 (1939).\n35. Tobias, Carl, Congress and the 2000 Federal Civil Rules Amendments, 22 CARDOZO L. REV. 75 (2000).\n36. Waxse, David J., “Do I Really Have To Do That?” Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Electronic Information, 10 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 50 (2004).\n37. Wise, Robert K. & Wooten, Kennon L., The Practitioner’s Guide to Properly Taking and Defending Depositions Under the Texas Discovery Rules, 68 BAYLOR L. REV. 402 (2016).\n\n四、 法院判決\n1. American Standard Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 828 F.2d 734 (Fed. Cir. 1987).\n2. Autogiro Co. of America v. United States, 384 F. 2d 391 (Ct. Cl. 1967).\n3. Avocent Redmond Corp. v. Rose Elecs., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 574 (W.D.Wa. 2007).\n4. Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep`t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir.1980).\n5. Crystal Semicond. v. Tritech Microelec, 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001).\n6. Cummins-Allison Corp. v. Glory Ltd., No. 02-CV-7008, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23653, 24 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 2, 2004).\n7. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 199 F.R.D. 168, 172 (D. Md. 2001).\n8. Elkharwily v. Franciscan Health Sys., No. 3:15-cv-05579-RJB (W.D. Wash. June 30, 2016).\n9. EMI Group N.A., Inc. v. Intel Corp., 157 F.3d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1998).\n10. Epicrealm Licensing, LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc., Cases No. 2:05-CV-163-DF-CMC, 2:05-CV-356-DF-CMC, 2007 WL 2580969 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2007).\n11. F. T. C. v. Exxon Corp., 636 F.2d 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1980).\n12. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002).\n13. Fractus, S.A. v. ZTE Corp., CIVIL ACTION No. 3:18-CV-2838-K (N.D. Tex. May 14, 2019).\n14. Fromson v. Anitec Printing Plates, Inc. 132 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998).\n15. Goes Int`l, AB v. Dodur Ltd., No. 14-cv-05666-LB (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2017).\n16. Heat & Control, Inc. v. Hester Indus., Inc., 785 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1986).\n17. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947).\n18. Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992).\n19. Honeywell Intern. Inc. v. Acer America Corp., 655 F.Supp.2d 650 (E.D. Tex. 2009).\n20. In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 343 F.3d 658 (3d Cir.2003).\n21. In re Deutsche Bank, 605 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010).\n22. In re Echostar Communications Corp., 448 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2006).\n23. In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619 (4th Cir. 1988).\n24. In re Seagate Technology, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007).\n25. In re Sealed Case, 146 F.3d 881 (D.C. Cir. 1998).\n26. Lamonds v. General Motors Corp., 180 F.R.D. 302 (W.D. Va. 1998).\n27. Micro Motion, Inc. v. Kane Steel Co., Inc., 894 F.2d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1990).\n28. Niks v. Marinette Paper Co., 11 F.R.D. 384, 90 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 301 (N.D.N.Y. 1951).\n29. Notaro v. Koch, 95 F.R.D. 403 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).\n30. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978).\n31. Philadelphia v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 205 F. Supp. 830 (ED Pa. 1962).\n32. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc).\n33. Roberts v. Heim, 123 F.R.D. 614 (N.D. Cal. 1988).\n34. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273 (N.D. Cal. 2002).\n35. Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1985).\n36. U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 730 F.2d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1984).\n37. U.S. v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194 (2d Cir. 1998).\n38. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981).\n39. Vesta Corp. v. Amdocs Mgmt. Ltd., No. 3:14-cv-01142-HZ (D. Or. Feb. 21, 2017).\n\n五、 法規\n1. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (2000).\n2. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (2020).\n3. FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (2020).\n4. PATENT RULES OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.\n5. RESTATEMENT (FIRST) OF TORTS § 757 comment b. (1939).\n6. U.S. CONST. art. I, §8.\n\n六、 官方文件\n1. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 85 F.R.D. 521 (1980) (Powell, J., dissenting).\n2. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 97 F.R.D. 165 (1983).\n3. Fed. Cir., E-Discovery Committee, Model Order Regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases, available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/announcements/Ediscovery_Model_Order.pdf\n4. FED. R. CIV. P. 26 advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment.\n5. Fritz Machlup, An Economic Review of the Patent System, Study No. 15 of the Subcomm. on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Sen., 85th Cong., 2d Sess., (1958).\n6. Rader, Randall R., former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Texas Bar Association Keynote: Patent Law and Litigation Abuse (Nov. 1, 2013), available at http://mcsmith.blogs.com/files/rader-2013-ed-tex-bb-speech.pdf\n\n七、 網路資料\n1. Darts-ip, Discovery system is expected to be introduced in South Korea (Mar 18, 2020), available at https://clarivate.com/darts-ip/blog/discovery-system-in-south-korea/ (Last visited: 2021/02/08).\n2. Jung, Min-hee, LG Chem sues SK Innovation for Infringing Secondary Battery Trade Secrets (Apr 30, 2019), available at http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=31422 (Last visited: 2021/02/08).\n3. Jung, Min-kyung, S. Korea vows to open an era of ‘digital IP’: IP office chief (Nov 24, 2020), available at http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20201124000717 (Last visited: 2021/02/08).\n4. Lee, Hyun-Sil & Kim, Minji Ryan, South Korea strengthens IP protection through legislative measures (Aug 20, 2020), available at https://www.managingip.com/article/b1n06yxsm5451g/south-korea-strengthens-ip-protection-through-legislative-measures (Last visited: 2021/02/08).\n5. PwC, 2018 Patent Litigation Study, available at https://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2018-pwc-patent-litigation-study.pdf (Last visited: 2020/02/04).\n6. The Global Innovation Policy Center of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, International IP Index, 8th Edition, (2020), available at https://www.theglobalipcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/023881_GIPC_IP_Index_2020_FullReport_A_04b.pdf (Last visited: 2020/02/04).\n7. World Intellectual Property Organization, World Intellectual Property Report 2017: Intangible Capital in Global Value Chains, available at https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_944_2017.pdf (Last visited: 2020/02/04).\n8. World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO IP Facts and Figures 2018, available at https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_943_2018.pdf (Last visited: 2020/02/04).\n9. World Intellectual Property Organization, World Intellectual Property Indicators 2019, available at https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_941_2019.pdf (Last visited: 2020/02/04).\n10. World Trade Organization, Agreement On Trade-Related Aspects Of Intellectual Property Rights, available at https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf (Last visited: 2021/02/02).\n11. Yulchon LLC, Korea Finally Puts Some Teeth into Its Discovery Rules - An Executive Summary and Analysis of Significant Updates to the Korean Patent Act and Korean Trademark Act (Jun 29, 2016), available at https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1a443b07-0397-443d-a531-d5ad069751aa (Last visited: 2021/02/08).
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
法律學系
107651006
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107651006
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
100601.pdf3.46 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.