1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Law
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 美國專利侵權訴訟中專利無效程序與多方複審制度之比較研究
Research on Patent Invalidate Process of Patent Infringe Lawsuit and Inter Partes Review and Comparison Therebetween
作者 何祥任
He, Hsiang-Ren
貢獻者 沈宗倫
何祥任
He, Hsiang-Ren
關鍵詞 專利
多方複審程序
專利無效
專利侵權訴訟
Patent
Patent infringement lawsuit
Inter partes review
PTAB
Patent invalidation
日期 2020
上傳時間 2-Sep-2020 12:26:48 (UTC+8)
摘要 美國專利訴訟一直是國際專利訴訟的主要戰場，在2011年美國發明法(AIA)施行後，多方複審程序已成為專利侵權訴訟中，被告防禦的常用程序。由於多方複審程序兼具司法與行政的特性，且由美國專利審理暨訴願委員會(PTAB)所管轄，與聯邦法院專利訴訟中的專利無效程序形成判定專利有效性的雙軌制。由於二種制度的程序，時程與規定不同，其間又會交互影響，對於主體有時效規定，客體上也有禁反言規定，造成部分的衝突與競合。本論文藉由法規與制度的比較分析及搜集相關案例的解釋，以說明相關法規落實在實務上判決的應用，最後並提供當事人訴訟策略上的建議。
US patent litigation has always been the main battlefield for international patent litigation. After the implementation of the American Inventions Act (AIA) in 2011, the Inter Partes Review(IPR) has become a common procedure for defendants in patent infringement litigation. Because IPR has both judicial and administrative characteristics, and is governed by the United States Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), it forms a dual-track system for determining the validity of patents with the patent invalidation process in patent litigation in the Federal Court. Because the procedures of the two systems are different in terms of schedules and regulations, there will be interactions between them. There are also estoppel regulations on the subject and the object, causing some conflicts and competition. This thesis uses comparative analysis of laws and regulations and collected relevant case explanations to explain the application of relevant laws and regulations in practical judgments, and finally provides suggestions on litigation strategies for the parties.
參考文獻 一、 中文資料
（一） 著作
1. 王承守、鄧穎懋，美國專利訴訟攻防策略運用，初版，2004年11月

（二） 期刊論文
1. 劉國讚，美國專利無效之訴訟與複審制度之研究，智慧財產權月刊，89期，頁5-32，2006年五月
2. 劉懿嫻，美國專利法非顯而易知性之新觀點：相同條件下的客觀指標，科技法學評論，7卷2期，頁181-219，2010年12月
3. 尹守信，淺析美國專利法上之非顯而易知性要件，智慧財產權月刊，第84期，頁128-146，2005年12月
4. 潘世光，美國專利無效訴訟之第三者效力研究-論美國最高法院 1971 年Blonder-Tongue 判決，智慧財產權月刊，89期，頁44-47，2006年5月
5. 彭國洋，專利經撤銷確定對於專利授權契約的影響，專利師，第十九期，頁89-92，2014年10月
6. 楊智傑，美國與台灣專利民事侵權訴訟爭點效之發展與爭議—兼論台灣專利無效雙軌制之困境，交大法學評論，第3期，頁102, 103, 2018年4月
7. 楊智傑，黃婷翊，美國專利複審程序及Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee案，專利師，第二十七期，頁18-57，2016年10月
8. 陳在方，美國專利紛爭解決之關鍵性變革--論美國專利複審程序的結構功能分析與實施成效，交大法學評論，第2期，頁25-46，2017年12月
9. 朱浩筠，美國專利舉發制度及其相關爭議問題簡介—以多方複審(IPR)案件為中心，智慧財產權月刊，Vol. 213, 頁5-25, 2006年9月
10. 王世仁，美國專利多方複審制度與相關法院判決，智慧財產權月刊，Vol. 243，2019年3月，頁51-66

(三) 電子文獻
1. 談定宇，IDS呈報還是不呈報？Retrieved from http://www.naipo.com/portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Patent_Skill/publish-11.htm (April, 19, 2020)
2. 李秉燊，讓與人禁反言不適用於IPR程序：2018年Arista Networks Inc v Cisco Sys 案，北美智權報，227期，2018年12月26日，Retrieved from http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPNC_181226_0501.htm (May 17, 2020)
3. 陳志清，基於時間限制的判斷而是否立案「多方複審程序」的決定是不可上訴的：美國聯邦最高法院Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP案件，廣流智權評析，第57期，2020年5月4日，Retrieved from http://www.widebandip.com/tw/mobile/knowledge2.php?type1=A&idno=558(May 27, 2020)
4. 洪子洵，專利有效性判斷之基準-從美國CAFC於Novartis AG v Noven Pharmaceuticals案維持PTAB專利複審結果談起, Retrieved from http://www.saintisland.com.tw/TW/Knowledge/Knowledge_Info.aspx?IT=Know_0_1&CID=256&ID=570 (April, 18, 2020)
5. 李秉燊，改弦更張：USPTO預告修正專利複審程序之解釋申請專利範圍標準，北美智權報，第213期，2018年6月13日，Retrieved from http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/IPNC_180613_0706.htm (June 1, 2020)

（四）學術論文
1. 蔣瑞琴，美國專利侵權訴訟之證據能力與舉證責任，國立交通大學，2006年6月
2. 余俊璉，從美國聯邦法院Microsoft v. I4I案論跨國企業專利保護與創新之衡平，東吳大學，2013年9月

二、 英文資料
（一） 電子文獻
1. Andrew Schreiber, Rachel J. Elsby & Rubén H. Muñoz, PTAB Must Consider Privity and Real Partyin-Interest Relationships Arising After Filing but Before Institution for Time-Bar Purposes, July 8, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.akingump.com/en/experience/practices/intellectual-property/ipnewsflash/ptab-must-consider-privity-and-real-party-in-interest.html (June 4, 2020)
2. Barbara Clarke McCurdy, Thomas L. Irving, How the PTAB and Federal Circuit Have Responded to Aqua Products, March 28, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/howthe-ptab-and-federal-circuit-have-responded-to-aqua-products.html (May 30, 2020)
3. Brad M. Scheller, Rithika Kulathila, Can Infringement Contentions be Amended to Add New Claims Resulting from an Ex Parte Reexam Filed after IPRs Invalidated Some but Not All Claims?, Nov. 5, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2231/2019-11-can-infringementcontentions-be-amended-add-new-claims (June 2, 2020)
4. Brooke M. Wilner, Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D., PTAB Designates Decision on Discretionary Denial as Precedential, May 13, 2020, Retrieved from https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/americainvents-act/ptab-designates-decision-on-discretionary-denial-as-precedential.html (May 14, 2020)
5. Charles R. Macedo, Jung S. Hahm, Understanding PTAB Trials: Key Milestones in IPR, PGR and CBM Proceedings, Retrieved from https://www.arelaw.com/images/article/link_pdf-1-1415047685-ARElaw_Understanding_PTAB_Trials101414.pdf (March 25, 2020)
6. Charles W. Shifley, Late to File Your IPR, But the PTAB Says You`re OK? Don`t Worry, the Federal Circuit Can`t Care, Sept. 27, 2016, Retrieved from https://bannerwitcoff.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/ALERT-PTAB-Highlights.Shifley.09.27.16.pdf (March 25, 2020)
7. David C. Reese, Cancellation of Claims by the PTO During Reexamination Is Binding in Concurrent Infringement Litigation, Aug. 2013, Retrieved from https://www.finnegan.com/files/Upload/Newsletters/Last_Month_at_the_Federal_Circuit/2013/August/FCN_Aug13_1.html (June 7, 2020)
8. David Hricik, USPTO Rule Making: Codify SAS, Eliminate Presumption in Favor of Petitioner, May 27, 2020, Retrieved from https://patentlyo.com/patent/2020/05/eliminate-presumptionpetitioner.html (May 29, 2020)
9. Eliot D. Williams, Federal Circuit Reaffirms Vitality of the Assignor Estoppel Doctrine – Further Emphasizing the Importance of the PTAB, 20 July 2016, Retrieved from https://www.bakerbotts.com/insights/publications/2016/07/federal-circuit-reaffirms-vitality-of-theassignor (May 24, 2020)
10. Eric C. Jeschke, Jeffrey C. Totten, Four Strategies to Stay Litigation in Favor of IPR, May 2014, Retrieved from https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/four-strategies-to-stay-litigation-infavor-of-ipr.html (May 31, 2020)
11. Gene Quinn, The Best Mode Requirement: Not disclosing preferences in a patent application still a big mistake, Retrieved from https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/02/06/best-mode-requirementpreferences/id=65879/ (April, 19, 2020)
12. James Kritsas, Nicholas Restauri, Jason White, District Court Applies IPR Estoppel to Physical Products That Are Materially the Same as Available Publications, January 20, 2020, Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/district-court-applies-ipr-estoppel-to-64266/ (June 17, 2020)
13. Jessica L. Zurlo, Stephanie D. Scruggs, District Courts Lack Jurisdiction to Review Attacks on Collateral IPR Decisions, Jan. 17, 2020, Retrieved from https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2020/01/district-courts-lack-jurisdiction-to-reviewattacks-on-collateral-ipr-decisions (May 31, 2020)
14. John Marlott, Court Allows Accused Infringer’s Have-Cake, Eat-Cake Patent Invalidity Strategy, Aril 16, 2020, Retrieved from https://www.ptablitigationblog.com/court-allows-accused-infringers-havecake-eat-cake-patent-invalidity-strategy/ (June 1, 2020)
15. John Marlott, Have Cake, Eat Cake: Declaratory Judgment Strategy For Accused Infringers, April 11, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ptablitigationblog.com/have-cake-eat-cake-declaratory-judgmentstrategy-for-accused-infringers/ (July, 1, 2020)
16. Julianne M. Hartzell, One Year Time Bar Runs from Date of Service, Regardless of Whether Suit is Dismissed, Aug. 22, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ptabwatch.com/2018/08/one-year-time-barruns-from-date-of-service-regardless-of-whether-suit-is-dismissed/ (March 29, 2020)
17. Kevin E. Noonan, Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP (2020), April 20, 2020, Retrieved from https://www.patentdocs.org/2020/04/thryv-inc-v-click-to-call-technologies-lp-2020.html (April 29, 2020)
18. Kevin Greanleaf, Shaun Zhang, Eric Cohen etc., How Different Are the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and Phillips Claim Construction Standards?, IPO Law Journal, Oct. 11, 2018, Retrieved from https://ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/BRI-v-Phillips-Final-1.pdf (June 1, 2020)
19. Linda A. Wadler, Barbara R. Rudolph, Ph.D., Meredith H. Boerschlein, IPR Estoppel: Current District Court Trends and Practice Tips, Jan. 2018, Retrieved from https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/ipr-estoppel-current-district-court-trends-andpractice-tips.html (March 25, 2020)
20. Lisa M. Mandrusiak, No Retroactive IPR Estoppel in Co-Pending Litigation, April 3, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.oblon.com/no-retroactive-ipr-estoppel-in-copending-litigation (May 31, 2020)
21. Maria A. Stubbings, Cautionary Tale to IPR Petitioners: Avoid Time Bar Pitfalls, Sept. 10 2018, Retrieved from https://www.1600ptab.com/2018/09/cautionary-tale-ipr-petitioners-avoid-time-barpitfalls/ (March 25, 2020)
22. Matthew George Hartman & Rubén H. Muñoz, Failing to Identify Parent Company as Real Party-In-Interest Proves Fatal to Petition for IPR, Sept. 10, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.akingump.com/en/experience/practices/intellectual-property/ip-newsflash/failing-toidentify-parent-company-as-real-party-in-interest.html (June 4, 2020)
23. Matthew J. Luneack, Assignor Estoppel Has “No Place” in IPR Proceedings, Nov. 27, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/federal-circuit-ip/assignor-estoppel-hasno-place-in-ipr-proceedings.html (May 24, 2020)
24. Michael G. Babbitt and Smitha B. Uthaman, The Future of Section 112 Patent Defenses: Catching up to Section 101?, Intellectual Property &Technology Law Journal, Volume 30, Number 12, pp. 3-6, December 2018
25. Michael L. Kiklis, Matthew D. Zapadka, USPTO Designates Three Decisions Relating to Real-Partyin-Interest as Precedential, April 22, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/usptodesignates-three-decisions-91507/ (June 4, 2020)
26. Ming-Tao Yang, Patent Damages “Zero Out” After IPRs– Intervening Rights and Patentees’ Admissions, Dec. 9, 2014, Retrieved from https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/patentdamages-zero-out-after-iprs-intervening-rights-and.html (June 2, 2020)
27. Nathan J. Lee & Jeremy Anapol, Reissue Patent Claims Not “Clearly and Unequivocally” Supported in Original Patent Are Invalid, Retrieved from https://www.knobbe.com/news/2019/06/reissuepatent-claims-not-“clearly-and-unequivocally”-supported-original-patent-are (May 12, 2020)
28. Robert Masters, Jonathan DeFosse and Kevin A. Ryan, Intellectual Property Outlook: Cases and Trends to Follow in 2020 — PART 3, March 4, 2020, Retrieved from https://www.intellectualpropertylawblog.com/archives/ip-outlook-cases-trends-2020-part3-iprpetition (March 27, 2020)
29. Ryan Vachon, Threshold for Institution Is Preponderance of Evidence, Nov. 11, 2015, Retrieved from https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/442672/threshold-for-institution-ispreponderance-of-evidence (Feb. 12, 2020)
30. Sandip H. Patel, Federal Circuit Invites Patent Office to Open Pandora’s Box, Feb. 11, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.ptabwatch.com/2019/02/federal-circuit-invites-patent-office-to-openpandoras-box/ (June 1, 2020)
31. Scott McKeown, Product Manuals vs. Products: Breadth of IPR Estoppel, February 11, 2015, Retrieved from https://www.patentspostgrant.com/product-manuals-vs-products-breadth-of-ptabestoppel/ (June 25, 2020)
32. Scott McKeown, Rehabilitating Failed PTAB Art, Jan 16, 2020, Retrieved from https://www.patentspostgrant.com/rehabilitating-failed-ptab-art/ (June 7, 2020)
33. Stephanie Brooker, Gasper LaRosa, Trial Court Denies Amendment of Contentions To Add Reexam Claims Following Successful IPR, Oct. 22, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/trial-court-denies-amendment-of-24721/ (June 2, 2020)
34. Susan Perng Pan, Arun Shome, The Legal Implications for Privies, as Compared to Real Parties in Interest, in Patent Office Post-Grant Proceedings, IP Litigator, Vol. 23 No. 5, Sept./Oct. 2017, pp. 1-5, Retrieved from http://www.sughrue.com/files/Publication/2ffe2c48-9d92-444e-a53b-0361ed428865/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/a4915846-1709-4e69-b747-0870a9a85445/90003000MARKETINGARTICLEThelegalimplicationsforpriviesSPPandArun92017.pdf (June 4, 2020)
35. William C. Rowland, Roger H. Lee, Supreme Court: Government Cannot Challenge Patent Validity in IPR, June 24, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.bipc.com/supreme-court-government-cannotchallenge-patent-validity-in-ipr ( Feb. 12, 2020)
36. William Rowland, Assignor Estoppel Bars an Invalidity Challenge in District Court but is Not Available as a Defense in an Inter Partes Review Proceeding, March 29, 2016, Retrieved from https://www.bipc.com/assignor-estoppel-bars-an-invalidity-challenge-in-district-court-but-is-notavailable-as-a-defense-in-an-inter-partes-review-proceeding (June 6, 2020)
37. Zachary Silbersher, What happens when a district court and the PTAB disagree over the validity of a patent?, May 1, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.markmanadvisors.com/blog/2019/5/1/whathappens-when-a-district-court-and-the-ptab-disagree-over-the-validity-of-a-patent (May 31, 2020)

（二） 國外案例
1. Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 803 F.3d 652 (Fed. Cir 2015)
2. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)
3. Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, (May 13, 2020)
4. Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, No. 15-1177 (Fed. Cir. Octrober 4, 2017) (en banc)
5. Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 17-1525 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2018)
6. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124 (2013)
7. Austin MacHinery Co. v. Buckeye Traction Ditcher Co., 13 F.2d 697 (6th Cir. 1926)
8. Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. 339 U.S. 827 (1950)
9. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 561 U.S. __, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792 (2010)
10. Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., No. 12-1289 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 27, 2015)
11. Blonder Tongue v. University of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313 (1971)
12. BTG International Ltd. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Appeal 2019-1147 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2018)
13. Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC, 2:16-cv-04636 (D. N.J. August 1, 2016)
14. Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC, IPR2017-02125, Paper No. 15 (Mar. 30, 2018)
15. Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. ALE USA, Inc. FKA Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise USA, Inc., No. 18-2420(Fed. Cir. 2019)
16. Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc., No. 3:2017cv04738 Oder (N.D. Cal. 2020, 1, 9)
17. Crowe v. Henry. 115 F.3d 294,296 (5th Cir. 1997)
18. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446 (S. Ct. 2016)
19. Davol, Inc. v. Atrium Medical, Corp., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00956 (D. Del, June 17, 2013)
20. Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
21. Diamond Scientific Co. vs. Ambico, Inc., 848 F.2d 1220(1988)
22. Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co., 863 F. Supp. 1165 (C.D. Cal. 1994)
23. Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-04133, Dkt. 80 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2020)
24. Forum U.S. Inc., v. Flow Valve, LLC, No. 2018-1765 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 17, 2019)
25. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc. Nos. 2012-1334, 2012-1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
26. Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case IPR2012-00001, slip op. at 6–7 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) (Paper 26)
27. Geffner v. Linear Rotary Bearings, Inc., 124 F.3d 229, 1997 WL 577506 (C.A.Fed.(N.Y.))
28. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966)
29. Greenwich Collieries v. Director, OWCP, 990 F. 2d 730, 736 (CA3 1993)
30. Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (1995)
31. Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Nien Made Enter. Co., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00268 (D. Colo, January 14, 2014)
32. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1375, 231 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 81, 87 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
33. In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
34. Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp., 2:16-cv-00980 (E.D. Tex. 2016)
35. IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 15-cv-03755(N.D. Cal. 2019)
36. IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., et al., v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 15-cv-03752 (N.D. Cal. 2019-10-11, Order)
37. John Simmons Co. v. Grier Bros. Co., 258 U.S. 82 (1922)
38. KSR Int`l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)
39. Lear, Inc. vs. Adkins, 395 US 653(1969)
40. MAG Aerospace Industries, Inc., NKA MAG Aerospace Industries, LLC v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., Nos. 2015–1370, 2015–1426 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
41. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 1535 (E.D. Pa. 1991)
42. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F. 3d 967 (Fed Cir. 1995)
43. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996)
44. Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012)
45. McKesson Information Solutions, Inc. v. Bridge Medical, Inc., No. 06-1517 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2007)
46. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (2011)
47. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc. 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
48. Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience N.V., No. 07-1109 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2008)
49. NAUTILUS, INC. v. BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC, No. 13-369 (S. Ct. June 2, 2014)
50. Nestlé Purina Petcare Co. v. Oil-Dri Corp. of America, Case IPR2015-00737 (PTAB, Sept. 23, 2015) (DeFranco, APJ)
51. Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
52. Nilssen, et al. v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir. October 10, 2007 )
53. Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Noven Pharm., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 3d 474 (D. Del. 2015).
54. Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Watson Labs., Inc., 611 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
55. Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., No. 18-2256 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
56. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc)
57. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC d/b/a On Semiconductor, No. 2018-1607 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2019)
58. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF LLC , 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
59. Praxair, Inc. v. Atmi, Inc. 543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
60. Prolitec, Inc. v. ScentAir Techs., Inc., 807 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
61. Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, Case IPR2017-01917 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2019)
62. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-0633 (DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2014)
63. Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service, No. 17–1594, 587 U.S. ___ (2019)
64. SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)
65. Senju Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
66. Shamrock Techs., Inc. v. Med. Sterilization, Inc., 903 F.2d 789, 793 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
67. Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys. Inc., 817 F.3d 1293, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
68. Sinskey v. Pharmacia Ophthalmics, Inc. 982 F.2d 494 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
69. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. v. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der angewandten Förschung e. V, IPR2018-00681 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2018)
70. Smith & Griggs Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 123 U.S. 249 (1887)
71. Star EnviroTech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC et. al., 8-12-cv-01861 (C.D. Cal. January 29, 2015, Order)
72. State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir.1998)
73. Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008)
74. Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, __ U.S. __, 2020 WL 1906544 (Apr. 20, 2020)
75. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp., 846 F.3d 1190, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
76. TP Laboratories, Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc. 724 F.2d 965 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
77. Triplett v. Lowell, 297 U.S. 638 (1936)
78. U.S. Nutraceuticals, LLC v. Cyanotech Corp., Case No. 5:12-cv-366-Oc-10PRL (M.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2014)
79. Ventex Co. Ltd. v. Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc., Case IPR2017-00651 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019)
80. Vizio, Inc. v. ATI Techs. ULC, IPR2018-00560, Paper 7 (PTAB Aug. 14, 2018)
81. Wasica Finance GmbH v. Schrader International, et al., 1-13-cv-1353(D. Del. July 29, 2013)
82. Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, No. 15-1944 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc)
83. XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics Nos. 2016-2054, 2016-2136 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
84. Zodiac Pool Systems Inc. v. Aqua Products Inc., No. IPR2013-159, 2014 WL 4244016 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2014)
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法學院碩士在職專班
102961028
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102961028
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 沈宗倫zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 何祥任zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) He, Hsiang-Renen_US
dc.creator (作者) 何祥任zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) He, Hsiang-Renen_US
dc.date (日期) 2020en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2-Sep-2020 12:26:48 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-Sep-2020 12:26:48 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Sep-2020 12:26:48 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0102961028en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131693-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 法學院碩士在職專班zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 102961028zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 美國專利訴訟一直是國際專利訴訟的主要戰場，在2011年美國發明法(AIA)施行後，多方複審程序已成為專利侵權訴訟中，被告防禦的常用程序。由於多方複審程序兼具司法與行政的特性，且由美國專利審理暨訴願委員會(PTAB)所管轄，與聯邦法院專利訴訟中的專利無效程序形成判定專利有效性的雙軌制。由於二種制度的程序，時程與規定不同，其間又會交互影響，對於主體有時效規定，客體上也有禁反言規定，造成部分的衝突與競合。本論文藉由法規與制度的比較分析及搜集相關案例的解釋，以說明相關法規落實在實務上判決的應用，最後並提供當事人訴訟策略上的建議。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) US patent litigation has always been the main battlefield for international patent litigation. After the implementation of the American Inventions Act (AIA) in 2011, the Inter Partes Review(IPR) has become a common procedure for defendants in patent infringement litigation. Because IPR has both judicial and administrative characteristics, and is governed by the United States Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), it forms a dual-track system for determining the validity of patents with the patent invalidation process in patent litigation in the Federal Court. Because the procedures of the two systems are different in terms of schedules and regulations, there will be interactions between them. There are also estoppel regulations on the subject and the object, causing some conflicts and competition. This thesis uses comparative analysis of laws and regulations and collected relevant case explanations to explain the application of relevant laws and regulations in practical judgments, and finally provides suggestions on litigation strategies for the parties.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 謝辭…………………………………………………………………………………..i
摘要………………………………………………………………………………….ii
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………...iii
目次………………………………………………………………………………… iv
圖次………………………………………………………………………………….vii
第一章 緒論………………………………………………………………………..1
第一節 研究動機……………………………………………………………..1
第一項 多方複審程序統計數據………………………………………..1
第二項 多方複審程序案件與專利訴訟的關聯分析…………………..4
第二節 研究目的……………………………………………………………..5
第三節 研究方法與架構……………………………………………………..6
第四節 研究範圍與限制……………………………………………………..7
第二章 美國專利侵權訴訟中的專利無效程序…………………………………..9
第一節 美國專利侵權訴訟程序……………………………………………..9
第二節 專利訴訟中提出專利無效的時點與要件…………………………..15
第一項 專利無效法源……………………………………………………16
第二項 專利無效抗辯時點………………………………………………17
第三項 專利無效抗辯要件………………………………………………17
第三節 舉證責任與舉證程度………………………………………………..24
第一項 提出證據的責任及證明責任與舉證程度………………………25
第二項 專利無效要件的舉證原則………………………………………26
第四節 判決效力……………………………………………………………..30
第一項 專利無效之對世效力……………………………………………30
第二項 專利無效的溯及既往問題………………………………………32
第五節 專利無效相關之禁反言規定………………………………………..34
第一項 主體相關禁反言…………………………………………………34
第二項 客體相關禁反言…………………………………………………35
第三章 美國多方複審制度……………………………………………………..37
第一節 管轄單位與審理程序………………………………………………..37
第二節 請求之要件…………………………………………………………..43
第三節 請求時效規定………………………………………………………..46
第四節 舉證責任與舉證程度………………………………………………..51
第一項 提出證據的責任…………………………………………………52
第二項 舉證程度…………………………………………………………55
第五節 救濟制度……………………………………………………………..57
第六節 對相關訴訟之影響…………………………………………………..59
第一項 多方複審程序對進行中的專利侵權訴訟的影響……………....59
第二項 多方複審程序做成最終書面決定後對未判決專利侵權訴訟的影響……61
第三項 多方複審程序做成最終書面決定後對已判決專利侵權訴訟的影響……62
第四項 第三方提出系爭專利之多方複審程序對專利侵權訴訟的影響…………62
第七節 禁反言規定…………………………………………………………..66
第四章 雙軌制之衝突與競合---以相關判例探討………………………..69
第一節 對於請求項的解讀美國法院與PTAB立場之不同……………….69
第二節 請求項的修改……………………………………………………….72
第三節 IPR請求權與利害關係人揭露問題………………………………..75
第一項 實質利益當事人或者利害關係人的判斷………………………75
第二項 未盡揭露利害關係人義務而駁回………………………………76
第三項 專利讓與人禁反言………………………………………………77
第四項 利害關係人認定時點……………………………………………78
第五項 實質利益當事人揭露不影響申請日……………………………80
第四節 禁反言的交互影響…………………………………………………..81
第一項 隨附禁反言………………………………………………………81
第二項 爭點禁反言………………………………………………………83
第三項 實體產品是否構成禁反言………………………………………84
第五章 對於涉訟企業之建議…………………………………………..87
第一節 訴訟策略與時程控管………………………………………………..87
第二節 證據搜集與論述之控管……………………………………………..92
第六章 結論與建議…………………………………………………………..94
參考文獻……………………………………………………………………………..95		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1814239 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102961028en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 專利zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 多方複審程序zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 專利無效zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 專利侵權訴訟zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Patenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Patent infringement lawsuiten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Inter partes reviewen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) PTABen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Patent invalidationen_US
dc.title (題名) 美國專利侵權訴訟中專利無效程序與多方複審制度之比較研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Research on Patent Invalidate Process of Patent Infringe Lawsuit and Inter Partes Review and Comparison Therebetweenen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、 中文資料
（一） 著作
1. 王承守、鄧穎懋，美國專利訴訟攻防策略運用，初版，2004年11月

（二） 期刊論文
1. 劉國讚，美國專利無效之訴訟與複審制度之研究，智慧財產權月刊，89期，頁5-32，2006年五月
2. 劉懿嫻，美國專利法非顯而易知性之新觀點：相同條件下的客觀指標，科技法學評論，7卷2期，頁181-219，2010年12月
3. 尹守信，淺析美國專利法上之非顯而易知性要件，智慧財產權月刊，第84期，頁128-146，2005年12月
4. 潘世光，美國專利無效訴訟之第三者效力研究-論美國最高法院 1971 年Blonder-Tongue 判決，智慧財產權月刊，89期，頁44-47，2006年5月
5. 彭國洋，專利經撤銷確定對於專利授權契約的影響，專利師，第十九期，頁89-92，2014年10月
6. 楊智傑，美國與台灣專利民事侵權訴訟爭點效之發展與爭議—兼論台灣專利無效雙軌制之困境，交大法學評論，第3期，頁102, 103, 2018年4月
7. 楊智傑，黃婷翊，美國專利複審程序及Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee案，專利師，第二十七期，頁18-57，2016年10月
8. 陳在方，美國專利紛爭解決之關鍵性變革--論美國專利複審程序的結構功能分析與實施成效，交大法學評論，第2期，頁25-46，2017年12月
9. 朱浩筠，美國專利舉發制度及其相關爭議問題簡介—以多方複審(IPR)案件為中心，智慧財產權月刊，Vol. 213, 頁5-25, 2006年9月
10. 王世仁，美國專利多方複審制度與相關法院判決，智慧財產權月刊，Vol. 243，2019年3月，頁51-66

(三) 電子文獻
1. 談定宇，IDS呈報還是不呈報？Retrieved from http://www.naipo.com/portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Patent_Skill/publish-11.htm (April, 19, 2020)
2. 李秉燊，讓與人禁反言不適用於IPR程序：2018年Arista Networks Inc v Cisco Sys 案，北美智權報，227期，2018年12月26日，Retrieved from http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPNC_181226_0501.htm (May 17, 2020)
3. 陳志清，基於時間限制的判斷而是否立案「多方複審程序」的決定是不可上訴的：美國聯邦最高法院Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP案件，廣流智權評析，第57期，2020年5月4日，Retrieved from http://www.widebandip.com/tw/mobile/knowledge2.php?type1=A&idno=558(May 27, 2020)
4. 洪子洵，專利有效性判斷之基準-從美國CAFC於Novartis AG v Noven Pharmaceuticals案維持PTAB專利複審結果談起, Retrieved from http://www.saintisland.com.tw/TW/Knowledge/Knowledge_Info.aspx?IT=Know_0_1&CID=256&ID=570 (April, 18, 2020)
5. 李秉燊，改弦更張：USPTO預告修正專利複審程序之解釋申請專利範圍標準，北美智權報，第213期，2018年6月13日，Retrieved from http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/IPNC_180613_0706.htm (June 1, 2020)

（四）學術論文
1. 蔣瑞琴，美國專利侵權訴訟之證據能力與舉證責任，國立交通大學，2006年6月
2. 余俊璉，從美國聯邦法院Microsoft v. I4I案論跨國企業專利保護與創新之衡平，東吳大學，2013年9月

二、 英文資料
（一） 電子文獻
1. Andrew Schreiber, Rachel J. Elsby & Rubén H. Muñoz, PTAB Must Consider Privity and Real Partyin-Interest Relationships Arising After Filing but Before Institution for Time-Bar Purposes, July 8, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.akingump.com/en/experience/practices/intellectual-property/ipnewsflash/ptab-must-consider-privity-and-real-party-in-interest.html (June 4, 2020)
2. Barbara Clarke McCurdy, Thomas L. Irving, How the PTAB and Federal Circuit Have Responded to Aqua Products, March 28, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/howthe-ptab-and-federal-circuit-have-responded-to-aqua-products.html (May 30, 2020)
3. Brad M. Scheller, Rithika Kulathila, Can Infringement Contentions be Amended to Add New Claims Resulting from an Ex Parte Reexam Filed after IPRs Invalidated Some but Not All Claims?, Nov. 5, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2231/2019-11-can-infringementcontentions-be-amended-add-new-claims (June 2, 2020)
4. Brooke M. Wilner, Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D., PTAB Designates Decision on Discretionary Denial as Precedential, May 13, 2020, Retrieved from https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/americainvents-act/ptab-designates-decision-on-discretionary-denial-as-precedential.html (May 14, 2020)
5. Charles R. Macedo, Jung S. Hahm, Understanding PTAB Trials: Key Milestones in IPR, PGR and CBM Proceedings, Retrieved from https://www.arelaw.com/images/article/link_pdf-1-1415047685-ARElaw_Understanding_PTAB_Trials101414.pdf (March 25, 2020)
6. Charles W. Shifley, Late to File Your IPR, But the PTAB Says You`re OK? Don`t Worry, the Federal Circuit Can`t Care, Sept. 27, 2016, Retrieved from https://bannerwitcoff.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/ALERT-PTAB-Highlights.Shifley.09.27.16.pdf (March 25, 2020)
7. David C. Reese, Cancellation of Claims by the PTO During Reexamination Is Binding in Concurrent Infringement Litigation, Aug. 2013, Retrieved from https://www.finnegan.com/files/Upload/Newsletters/Last_Month_at_the_Federal_Circuit/2013/August/FCN_Aug13_1.html (June 7, 2020)
8. David Hricik, USPTO Rule Making: Codify SAS, Eliminate Presumption in Favor of Petitioner, May 27, 2020, Retrieved from https://patentlyo.com/patent/2020/05/eliminate-presumptionpetitioner.html (May 29, 2020)
9. Eliot D. Williams, Federal Circuit Reaffirms Vitality of the Assignor Estoppel Doctrine – Further Emphasizing the Importance of the PTAB, 20 July 2016, Retrieved from https://www.bakerbotts.com/insights/publications/2016/07/federal-circuit-reaffirms-vitality-of-theassignor (May 24, 2020)
10. Eric C. Jeschke, Jeffrey C. Totten, Four Strategies to Stay Litigation in Favor of IPR, May 2014, Retrieved from https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/four-strategies-to-stay-litigation-infavor-of-ipr.html (May 31, 2020)
11. Gene Quinn, The Best Mode Requirement: Not disclosing preferences in a patent application still a big mistake, Retrieved from https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/02/06/best-mode-requirementpreferences/id=65879/ (April, 19, 2020)
12. James Kritsas, Nicholas Restauri, Jason White, District Court Applies IPR Estoppel to Physical Products That Are Materially the Same as Available Publications, January 20, 2020, Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/district-court-applies-ipr-estoppel-to-64266/ (June 17, 2020)
13. Jessica L. Zurlo, Stephanie D. Scruggs, District Courts Lack Jurisdiction to Review Attacks on Collateral IPR Decisions, Jan. 17, 2020, Retrieved from https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2020/01/district-courts-lack-jurisdiction-to-reviewattacks-on-collateral-ipr-decisions (May 31, 2020)
14. John Marlott, Court Allows Accused Infringer’s Have-Cake, Eat-Cake Patent Invalidity Strategy, Aril 16, 2020, Retrieved from https://www.ptablitigationblog.com/court-allows-accused-infringers-havecake-eat-cake-patent-invalidity-strategy/ (June 1, 2020)
15. John Marlott, Have Cake, Eat Cake: Declaratory Judgment Strategy For Accused Infringers, April 11, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ptablitigationblog.com/have-cake-eat-cake-declaratory-judgmentstrategy-for-accused-infringers/ (July, 1, 2020)
16. Julianne M. Hartzell, One Year Time Bar Runs from Date of Service, Regardless of Whether Suit is Dismissed, Aug. 22, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ptabwatch.com/2018/08/one-year-time-barruns-from-date-of-service-regardless-of-whether-suit-is-dismissed/ (March 29, 2020)
17. Kevin E. Noonan, Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP (2020), April 20, 2020, Retrieved from https://www.patentdocs.org/2020/04/thryv-inc-v-click-to-call-technologies-lp-2020.html (April 29, 2020)
18. Kevin Greanleaf, Shaun Zhang, Eric Cohen etc., How Different Are the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and Phillips Claim Construction Standards?, IPO Law Journal, Oct. 11, 2018, Retrieved from https://ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/BRI-v-Phillips-Final-1.pdf (June 1, 2020)
19. Linda A. Wadler, Barbara R. Rudolph, Ph.D., Meredith H. Boerschlein, IPR Estoppel: Current District Court Trends and Practice Tips, Jan. 2018, Retrieved from https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/ipr-estoppel-current-district-court-trends-andpractice-tips.html (March 25, 2020)
20. Lisa M. Mandrusiak, No Retroactive IPR Estoppel in Co-Pending Litigation, April 3, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.oblon.com/no-retroactive-ipr-estoppel-in-copending-litigation (May 31, 2020)
21. Maria A. Stubbings, Cautionary Tale to IPR Petitioners: Avoid Time Bar Pitfalls, Sept. 10 2018, Retrieved from https://www.1600ptab.com/2018/09/cautionary-tale-ipr-petitioners-avoid-time-barpitfalls/ (March 25, 2020)
22. Matthew George Hartman & Rubén H. Muñoz, Failing to Identify Parent Company as Real Party-In-Interest Proves Fatal to Petition for IPR, Sept. 10, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.akingump.com/en/experience/practices/intellectual-property/ip-newsflash/failing-toidentify-parent-company-as-real-party-in-interest.html (June 4, 2020)
23. Matthew J. Luneack, Assignor Estoppel Has “No Place” in IPR Proceedings, Nov. 27, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/federal-circuit-ip/assignor-estoppel-hasno-place-in-ipr-proceedings.html (May 24, 2020)
24. Michael G. Babbitt and Smitha B. Uthaman, The Future of Section 112 Patent Defenses: Catching up to Section 101?, Intellectual Property &Technology Law Journal, Volume 30, Number 12, pp. 3-6, December 2018
25. Michael L. Kiklis, Matthew D. Zapadka, USPTO Designates Three Decisions Relating to Real-Partyin-Interest as Precedential, April 22, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/usptodesignates-three-decisions-91507/ (June 4, 2020)
26. Ming-Tao Yang, Patent Damages “Zero Out” After IPRs– Intervening Rights and Patentees’ Admissions, Dec. 9, 2014, Retrieved from https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/patentdamages-zero-out-after-iprs-intervening-rights-and.html (June 2, 2020)
27. Nathan J. Lee & Jeremy Anapol, Reissue Patent Claims Not “Clearly and Unequivocally” Supported in Original Patent Are Invalid, Retrieved from https://www.knobbe.com/news/2019/06/reissuepatent-claims-not-“clearly-and-unequivocally”-supported-original-patent-are (May 12, 2020)
28. Robert Masters, Jonathan DeFosse and Kevin A. Ryan, Intellectual Property Outlook: Cases and Trends to Follow in 2020 — PART 3, March 4, 2020, Retrieved from https://www.intellectualpropertylawblog.com/archives/ip-outlook-cases-trends-2020-part3-iprpetition (March 27, 2020)
29. Ryan Vachon, Threshold for Institution Is Preponderance of Evidence, Nov. 11, 2015, Retrieved from https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/442672/threshold-for-institution-ispreponderance-of-evidence (Feb. 12, 2020)
30. Sandip H. Patel, Federal Circuit Invites Patent Office to Open Pandora’s Box, Feb. 11, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.ptabwatch.com/2019/02/federal-circuit-invites-patent-office-to-openpandoras-box/ (June 1, 2020)
31. Scott McKeown, Product Manuals vs. Products: Breadth of IPR Estoppel, February 11, 2015, Retrieved from https://www.patentspostgrant.com/product-manuals-vs-products-breadth-of-ptabestoppel/ (June 25, 2020)
32. Scott McKeown, Rehabilitating Failed PTAB Art, Jan 16, 2020, Retrieved from https://www.patentspostgrant.com/rehabilitating-failed-ptab-art/ (June 7, 2020)
33. Stephanie Brooker, Gasper LaRosa, Trial Court Denies Amendment of Contentions To Add Reexam Claims Following Successful IPR, Oct. 22, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/trial-court-denies-amendment-of-24721/ (June 2, 2020)
34. Susan Perng Pan, Arun Shome, The Legal Implications for Privies, as Compared to Real Parties in Interest, in Patent Office Post-Grant Proceedings, IP Litigator, Vol. 23 No. 5, Sept./Oct. 2017, pp. 1-5, Retrieved from http://www.sughrue.com/files/Publication/2ffe2c48-9d92-444e-a53b-0361ed428865/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/a4915846-1709-4e69-b747-0870a9a85445/90003000MARKETINGARTICLEThelegalimplicationsforpriviesSPPandArun92017.pdf (June 4, 2020)
35. William C. Rowland, Roger H. Lee, Supreme Court: Government Cannot Challenge Patent Validity in IPR, June 24, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.bipc.com/supreme-court-government-cannotchallenge-patent-validity-in-ipr ( Feb. 12, 2020)
36. William Rowland, Assignor Estoppel Bars an Invalidity Challenge in District Court but is Not Available as a Defense in an Inter Partes Review Proceeding, March 29, 2016, Retrieved from https://www.bipc.com/assignor-estoppel-bars-an-invalidity-challenge-in-district-court-but-is-notavailable-as-a-defense-in-an-inter-partes-review-proceeding (June 6, 2020)
37. Zachary Silbersher, What happens when a district court and the PTAB disagree over the validity of a patent?, May 1, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.markmanadvisors.com/blog/2019/5/1/whathappens-when-a-district-court-and-the-ptab-disagree-over-the-validity-of-a-patent (May 31, 2020)

（二） 國外案例
1. Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 803 F.3d 652 (Fed. Cir 2015)
2. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)
3. Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, (May 13, 2020)
4. Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, No. 15-1177 (Fed. Cir. Octrober 4, 2017) (en banc)
5. Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 17-1525 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2018)
6. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124 (2013)
7. Austin MacHinery Co. v. Buckeye Traction Ditcher Co., 13 F.2d 697 (6th Cir. 1926)
8. Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. 339 U.S. 827 (1950)
9. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 561 U.S. __, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792 (2010)
10. Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., No. 12-1289 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 27, 2015)
11. Blonder Tongue v. University of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313 (1971)
12. BTG International Ltd. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Appeal 2019-1147 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2018)
13. Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC, 2:16-cv-04636 (D. N.J. August 1, 2016)
14. Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC, IPR2017-02125, Paper No. 15 (Mar. 30, 2018)
15. Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. ALE USA, Inc. FKA Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise USA, Inc., No. 18-2420(Fed. Cir. 2019)
16. Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc., No. 3:2017cv04738 Oder (N.D. Cal. 2020, 1, 9)
17. Crowe v. Henry. 115 F.3d 294,296 (5th Cir. 1997)
18. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446 (S. Ct. 2016)
19. Davol, Inc. v. Atrium Medical, Corp., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00956 (D. Del, June 17, 2013)
20. Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
21. Diamond Scientific Co. vs. Ambico, Inc., 848 F.2d 1220(1988)
22. Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co., 863 F. Supp. 1165 (C.D. Cal. 1994)
23. Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-04133, Dkt. 80 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2020)
24. Forum U.S. Inc., v. Flow Valve, LLC, No. 2018-1765 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 17, 2019)
25. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc. Nos. 2012-1334, 2012-1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
26. Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case IPR2012-00001, slip op. at 6–7 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) (Paper 26)
27. Geffner v. Linear Rotary Bearings, Inc., 124 F.3d 229, 1997 WL 577506 (C.A.Fed.(N.Y.))
28. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966)
29. Greenwich Collieries v. Director, OWCP, 990 F. 2d 730, 736 (CA3 1993)
30. Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (1995)
31. Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Nien Made Enter. Co., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00268 (D. Colo, January 14, 2014)
32. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1375, 231 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 81, 87 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
33. In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
34. Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp., 2:16-cv-00980 (E.D. Tex. 2016)
35. IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 15-cv-03755(N.D. Cal. 2019)
36. IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., et al., v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 15-cv-03752 (N.D. Cal. 2019-10-11, Order)
37. John Simmons Co. v. Grier Bros. Co., 258 U.S. 82 (1922)
38. KSR Int`l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)
39. Lear, Inc. vs. Adkins, 395 US 653(1969)
40. MAG Aerospace Industries, Inc., NKA MAG Aerospace Industries, LLC v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., Nos. 2015–1370, 2015–1426 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
41. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 1535 (E.D. Pa. 1991)
42. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F. 3d 967 (Fed Cir. 1995)
43. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996)
44. Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012)
45. McKesson Information Solutions, Inc. v. Bridge Medical, Inc., No. 06-1517 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2007)
46. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (2011)
47. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc. 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
48. Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience N.V., No. 07-1109 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2008)
49. NAUTILUS, INC. v. BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC, No. 13-369 (S. Ct. June 2, 2014)
50. Nestlé Purina Petcare Co. v. Oil-Dri Corp. of America, Case IPR2015-00737 (PTAB, Sept. 23, 2015) (DeFranco, APJ)
51. Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
52. Nilssen, et al. v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir. October 10, 2007 )
53. Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Noven Pharm., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 3d 474 (D. Del. 2015).
54. Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Watson Labs., Inc., 611 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
55. Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., No. 18-2256 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
56. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc)
57. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC d/b/a On Semiconductor, No. 2018-1607 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2019)
58. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF LLC , 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
59. Praxair, Inc. v. Atmi, Inc. 543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
60. Prolitec, Inc. v. ScentAir Techs., Inc., 807 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
61. Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, Case IPR2017-01917 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2019)
62. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-0633 (DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2014)
63. Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service, No. 17–1594, 587 U.S. ___ (2019)
64. SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)
65. Senju Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
66. Shamrock Techs., Inc. v. Med. Sterilization, Inc., 903 F.2d 789, 793 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
67. Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys. Inc., 817 F.3d 1293, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
68. Sinskey v. Pharmacia Ophthalmics, Inc. 982 F.2d 494 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
69. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. v. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der angewandten Förschung e. V, IPR2018-00681 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2018)
70. Smith & Griggs Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 123 U.S. 249 (1887)
71. Star EnviroTech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC et. al., 8-12-cv-01861 (C.D. Cal. January 29, 2015, Order)
72. State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir.1998)
73. Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008)
74. Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, __ U.S. __, 2020 WL 1906544 (Apr. 20, 2020)
75. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp., 846 F.3d 1190, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
76. TP Laboratories, Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc. 724 F.2d 965 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
77. Triplett v. Lowell, 297 U.S. 638 (1936)
78. U.S. Nutraceuticals, LLC v. Cyanotech Corp., Case No. 5:12-cv-366-Oc-10PRL (M.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2014)
79. Ventex Co. Ltd. v. Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc., Case IPR2017-00651 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019)
80. Vizio, Inc. v. ATI Techs. ULC, IPR2018-00560, Paper 7 (PTAB Aug. 14, 2018)
81. Wasica Finance GmbH v. Schrader International, et al., 1-13-cv-1353(D. Del. July 29, 2013)
82. Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, No. 15-1944 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc)
83. XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics Nos. 2016-2054, 2016-2136 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
84. Zodiac Pool Systems Inc. v. Aqua Products Inc., No. IPR2013-159, 2014 WL 4244016 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2014)		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202001416en_US