Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 營業秘密境外侵害與屬地法效：以美國營業秘密相關法制為借鏡
The Cross-Border Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Territoriality: a Comparative Study on American Legal Frameworks for Trade Secret作者 徐瑞婕
HSU, Jui-Chieh貢獻者 沈宗倫
徐瑞婕
HSU, Jui-Chieh關鍵詞 營業秘密
域外效力
屬地法效
兩步驟架構
跨境侵害
境外侵害
Trade Secret
Extraterritoriality
Territoriality
Two-Step Framework
Cross-Border Misappropriation of Trade Secret日期 2022 上傳時間 2-Sep-2022 15:09:26 (UTC+8) 摘要 隨著科技化與全球化時代之來臨，智慧財產權法之屬地主義須面臨某種程度之轉變，以因應日益興盛的跨境智慧財產權紛爭。本文將智慧財產權法制之域外效力分為三大問題，分別為域外效力之定性、域外效力之範圍，以及損害賠償之範圍，並集中於討論域外效力之範圍，即針對涉外個案，本國法的保護範圍。 2016年美國最高法院正式建立「兩步驟架構」（two-step framework），本文認為，「法律原則上無域外效力」之推定不應一律適用於全部個案，而應作為解釋立法者意圖之工具。此外，傳統「兩步驟架構」確認系爭法規具域外效力之後，對於涉外個案如何適用，並無具體指示，造成法院難以操作。因此，本文重新建構「新兩步驟架構」，使法院處理涉外個案中營業秘密法制擴張的屬地法效時，有更為清楚且具體的判斷步驟。 本文認為，涉外案件的判斷流程包含：國際裁判管轄權之確立、準據法之選擇，以及域外效力之範圍，即以「新兩步驟架構」判斷系爭法規之域外效力。「新兩步驟架構」之第一步驟，係探究立法者是否意圖使該法規域外適用於涉外個案，若是，則第二步驟為屬地法效之範圍判斷，本文建議採「統一權衡標準」（Uniformly-applied Balancing Test），以三個要件判斷域外適用之範圍；若否，則第二步驟應以「重心標準」（focus test）判斷系爭法規於個案之境內適用範圍。 本文以「新兩步驟架構」檢視美國337條款、經濟間諜法（EEA）與防衛營業秘密法（DTSA），分析法規與相關案例後提出本文意見，接著分析台灣營業秘密法與域外效力相關的規範，並提出立法建議。本文將營業秘密境外侵害之行為類型化，包含涉及民事責任的私法行為，以及涉及刑事責任的犯罪行為，期能細緻化營業秘密涉外規範，建構更為全面且層級化的營業秘密保護網絡。
With the advent of the era of technology and globalization, the territorialism of intellectual property law must face a certain degree of transformation to cope with the growing cross-border intellectual property disputes. The extraterritoriality of intellectual property law is divided into three major issues, the characterization of extraterritoriality, the scope of extraterritoriality, and the scope of the compensation for damage. The master’s thesis focuses on the scope of extraterritoriality, which is the protection scope of domestic law for foreign-related cases. The Supreme Court of the United States officially established the “two-step framework” in 2016. The thesis believes that the basic premise of a legal system that the domestic law governs domestically should be a tool to explain legislative intent, rather than apply to all cases without exception. In addition, after the traditional “two-step framework” confirmed the extraterritoriality of the law, there is no specific instruction on how to apply it to foreign-related cases, making it difficult for the courts to operate. Therefore, the “new two-step framework” is reconstructed, giving the courts a clear and more specific judgment standard to deal with the expansion of the territorial effect of the trade secrets laws in foreign-related cases. The judgment process of foreign-related cases includes the jurisdiction to adjudicate in an international sense, the choice of applicable law, and the scope of extraterritoriality, the last one is to judge the extraterritoriality of the law with the “new two-step framework”. The first step of the “new two-step framework” is to explore whether the legislators intend to make the law extraterritorial. If so, the second step is to judge the expanded scope of the territorial effect of the law in the foreign-related case, and the “Uniformly-applied Balancing Test” with three elements is recommended. If not, then the domestic scope of application of the law shall be judged by the “focus test”. The “new two-step framework” was used to examine the U.S. Section 337, the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, and the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, including analyzing the laws and relevant cases, and rendering some opinions. Then the thesis analyzes some Acts related to the extraterritoriality of trade secrets in Taiwan and provides legislative suggestions. The cross-border misappropriation of trade secrets is categorized into private acts which bear civil liability, and criminal acts which bear criminal liability, hoping to refine the foreign-related laws of trade secrets and build a more comprehensive and hierarchical trade secret protection network.參考文獻 一、中文（依姓氏筆畫排序）（一）專書1.王偉霖，營業秘密法理論與實務，元照，2020年5月，第3版。2.李瑞生，美國短暫過境管轄權之研究－以聯邦最高法院案例為中心，國際私法：管轄與選法理論之交錯，五南，2009年3月。3.法務部廉政署主編，聯合國及貪腐公約專題學術研討會論文集－我國之實踐與展望，法務部廉政署，2015年12月。4.丘宏達、陳純一，現代國際法，三民，2021年9月，修訂第4版。5.姜皇池，國際公法導論，新學林，2013年6月，第3版。6.柯澤東、吳光平，國際私法，元照，2020年10月，第6版。7.馬漢寶，國際私法總論各論，翰蘆，2021年1月，第3版。8.張靜，我國營業秘密法學的建構與開展：第一冊 營業秘密的基礎理論，新學林，2007年4月。9.謝銘洋，智慧財產權法，元照，2021年9月，第11版。10.薛波，元照英美法詞典，法律出版社，2003年。11.Jurgen Basedow，知的財產權分野における国際私法の確立，譯者：河野俊行、八並廉，收錄於河野俊行編知的財産権と渉外民事訴訟，弘文堂，2010年8月初版。（二）期刊論著1.王玉瓊，美國法上關於營業秘密之民事救濟－以法院判決之解析為中心，智慧財產權月刊，第214期，頁32-56，2016年10月。2.王千維，民事損害賠償責任法上因果關係之結構分析以及損害賠償之基本原則，政大法學評論，第60期，頁201-230，1998年12月。3.王千維，民事損害賠償責任成立要件上之因果關係、違法性與過失之內涵及其相互間之關係，中原財經法學，第8期，頁7-64，2002年6月。4.王欽彥，營業秘密侵害之準據法，輔仁法學第61期，頁87-176，2021年6月24日。5.王偉霖，簡評我國營業秘密新修正刑事規範－兼論美、日、陸營業秘密刑事規範，台灣法學雜誌，第254期，頁87-95，2014年8月。6.王偉霖，我國營業秘密刑事規範的再思考，法令月刊，第68卷第5期，頁64-90，2017年5月。7.王銘勇，域外侵害營業秘密罪法制研析，2014年第18屆全國科技法律研討會論文集，劉尚志主編，2014年。8.王銘勇，網路侵害境外營業秘密罪，月旦民商法雜誌，第72期，頁27-37，2021年6月。9.方元沂，論美國國際禮讓原則，華岡法粹，第55期，頁121-145，2013年10月。10.李惠宗，法律隱藏漏洞的發現與填補之法理基礎－司法院大法官違憲審查實踐的觀察，月旦法學雜誌，第185期，頁5-11，2010年10月。11.沈宗倫，營業秘密侵害之侵害者所得利益損害賠償—以營業秘密法第13條第1項第2款之合理詮釋為中心，台灣法律人第5期，頁33-48，2021年11月。12.吳光平，國際裁判管轄權地決定基準－總論上方法的考察，政大法學評論，第94期，頁267-334，2006年12月。13.吳光平，網際網路案件國際裁判管轄權之決定基準－以美國跨州網際網路案件之裁判管轄為中心，輔仁法學，第38期，頁33-110，2009年12月。14.吳從周，民法上之法律漏洞、類推適用與目的性限縮，東吳法律學報，第18卷第2期，頁103-140，2006年12月。15.林洲富，商標權之權利耗盡原則，月旦法學教室，第183期，頁31-33，2017年12月。16.林恩瑋，國際私法上「分割爭點(issue-by-issue)」方法之適用－以最高法院兩則判決為中心，政大法學評論，第119期，頁151-187，2011年2月。17.周妤軒、王立達，從國際法觀點看美國反托拉斯法域外效力－Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics案評析，月旦法學雜誌，第257期，頁143-164，2016年10月。18.林志潔，美國聯邦經濟間諜法之回顧與展望－兼論我國營業秘密法之刑罰化，科技法學評論，第13卷1期，頁1-67，2016年5月。19.洪志勳，台灣液晶電視產業的專利訴訟策略－以美國國際貿易委員會（ITC）為例，科技法律透析，第17卷第3期，頁21-26，2005年3月。20.洪三凱，評析我國智慧財產權邊境保護措施，全國律師，第22卷第10期，頁41-56，2018年10月。21.陳皓芸，專利法「販賣之要約」之界定－以跨國實施發明行為為中心，專利師，第26期，頁1-22，2016年7月。22.徐耀浤，以政策競爭吸引外國直接投資之研究，經濟研究年刊，第10期，頁399-422，2010年4月。23.許耀明，國際智慧財產權訴訟之國際管轄權決定、準據法選擇與法律適用之問題，玄奘法律學報，第8期，頁57-105，2007年12月。24.陳榮傳，專利權侵害的涉外民事訴訟（下）－以最高法院案例及新法的適用為中心，台灣法學雜誌，第216期，頁1-17，2013年1月。25.陳榮傳，涉外反競爭行為的管轄權與準據法，公平交易季刊，第22卷第2期，頁93-162，2014年4月。26.陳守煌、陳荔彤，國際刑事管轄權法律制度，法學叢刊，第58卷第1期，頁1-44，2013年1月。27.陳秉訓，論美國專利訴訟中對臺灣籍被告的對人管轄權－以2010至2011年間聯邦地方法院判決為中心，智慧財產權月刊，第164期，頁5-36，2012年8月。28.張哲倫，保護營業秘密之法理基礎暨其對侵權個案判斷之導引功能，智慧財產權月刊，第268期，頁6-27，2021年4月。29.章忠信，新法增訂侵害刑責，營業秘密更有保障，科技法律透析，第25卷第3期，頁4-9，2013年3月。30.黃本立，從AT&T判決看專利法治外法權－美國專利法第271條（f）項，智慧財產權月刊，第112期，頁52-66，2008年4月。31.曾勝珍、嚴惠妙，我國營業秘密法法制探討（上），全國律師，7月號，頁76-89，2015年7月。32.曾勝珍，美國經濟間諜法初探，中正大學法學集刊，第19期，頁71-146，2005年11月。33.曾勝珍，美國經濟間諜法施行成效之探討，財產法暨經濟法，第22期，頁71-146，2010年6月。34.溫祖德，從起訴裁量權論起訴政策及轉向計畫之訂定，檢察新論，第26期，頁27-41，2019年8月。35.劉尚志、王俊凱，美國國際貿易委員會之專利紛爭與台灣企業因應之道，日新半年刊，第6期，頁12-18，2006年1月。36.劉國讚，論植物發明之相當對價請求權－以日本訴訟實務為中心，智慧財產權月刊第117期，頁6-32，2008年9月。37.劉孔中，論智慧財產權之一般理論：有效促進公私資源交換與相互增益，洪範評論，第14輯，頁6-29，2012年10月。38.劉怡君、林志潔，從美國起訴聯電案比較經濟間諜行為之防制－從域外管轄到組織體責任，月旦法學雜誌，第297期，頁49-69，2020年2月。39.劉怡君，企業營業秘密案件法律風險之控管－以美國法制及實務為借鏡，全國律師，第25卷第6期，頁21-30，2021年6月。40.蔡華凱，國際裁判管轄總論之研究－以財產關係訴訟為中心，中正大學法學集刊，第17期，頁1-85，2004年10月。41.蔡華凱，涉外智慧財產民事事件之國際裁判管轄與準據法，中正大學法學集刊，第31期，頁57-115，2010年10月。42.蔡惟鈞，國際私法中契約衝突之規範－以「特徵性履行」為中心，華岡法粹，第59期，頁145-170，2015年12月。43.潘季翔、程小綾，調查機關受理侵害營業秘密告訴實務與案例探討，全國律師，6月號，頁31-37，2021年6月。44.駱志豪，TRIPS對營業秘密之保護，公平交易季刊第四卷第三期，頁61-79，1996年7月。45.謝宛蓁，我國營業秘密法制及爭議問題介紹－以刑事責任為中心，智慧財產權月刊，頁5-34，2013年10月。46.顏家琳，美國反托拉斯法域外適用的重量級法院裁定，公平交易委員會電子報第6期，頁1-2，2014年7月。47.蘇昱婷、劉尚志，台灣企業於美國國際貿易委員會專利訴訟之實證研究，智慧財產權月刊，第177期，頁56-104，2013年9月。（三）研究報告1.林明誼，營業秘密保護之研究，公務出國報告，2015年。2.法務部，統計摘要分析，違反營業秘密法案件統計分析，法務統計資料網，網址：https://www.rjsd.moj.gov.tw/RJSDWeb/common/WebList2.aspx?menu=AYA_SPECIAL_REPORT3.益思科技法律事務所，營業秘密法制之研究，經濟部智慧財產局，2008年5月。4.益思科技法律事務所，美國經濟間諜法案簡介，網址：www.is-law.com/old/ourdocuments/at0006ye.pdf5.調查局，本局偵辦侵害營業秘密案件統計資料，調查局網站，網址：https://www.mjib.gov.tw/EditPage/?PageID=f1ceb275-c17c-44d0-9d61-00a26b2326c2（四）判決1.最高法院104年度台上字第2197號判決2.智慧財產法院107年民專訴字第22號判決3.智慧財產法院107年度刑智上訴字第4號刑事判決4.(2011)沪二中民五(知)初字第50號5.(2013)沪高民三(知)終字第93號6.(2014)民申字第674號民事裁定7.(2016)沪民终501號（五）碩博士學位論文1.吳岱臻，營業秘密保護之認定與法院判決實務分析，南臺科技大學財經法律研究所碩士論文，2018年6月。2.何佳芳，論國際私法上屬人法之連繫因素，臺北大學法律學系碩士論文，2001年。3.林慧玲，美國經濟間諜法之研析－兼述我業因應之對策，東海大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2000年6月。4.林玠鋒，論涉外民事事件中當事人之法庭地選擇與法院之拒絕管轄，政治大學法律學系碩士論文，2005年。5.林季陽，涉外智慧財產紛爭事件之國際裁判管轄與準據法決定，台大科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文，2011年6月。6.林君宜，美國、歐盟及我國營業秘密侵害之比較研究－以民事救濟為中心，政治大學法律科際整合研究所碩士論文，2018年7月。7.周妤軒，反托拉斯法域外效力之國際法研究：以美國新近發展為中心，交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2016年7月。8.潘怡珍，不方便法院原則適用之研究，東海大學法律研究所碩士論文，2008年11月。（六）網路資料1.中央通訊社，企業智財調查報告 掌握智財管理策略新趨勢，科技法律研究所，2022年3月，網址：https://stli.iii.org.tw/news2019-detail.aspx?d=385&no=572.中華民國全國工業總會，對國安法及兩岸條例修法建議，中華民國全國工業總會，2022年6月，網址：http://www.cnfi.org.tw/front/bin/ptdetail.phtml?Part=magazine11106-627-13.立法院國會圖書館，外國法案介紹－營業秘密法，國會圖書館館訊，第18卷第1期（總133號）， 2017年2月。4.立法院國會圖書館，外國法案介紹－組織犯罪防制條例，國會圖書館館訊，第19卷第3期（總139號），2018年8月。5.朱子亮，美最高法院將討論關稅法337條是否適用發生在美國境外之侵害營業秘密行為：SINO LEGEND V. ITC，科技產業資訊室 (iKnow)， 2016年12月15日，網址：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=130366.李玟儀，中企挖角科技人才 台灣將修法防技術外流，德國之聲，2021年8月5日，網址：https://p.dw.com/p/3yYoV7.章忠信，杜邦之營業秘密保護案例，著作權筆記，2010年10月。8.張東揚，淺述美國聯邦最高法院2018年「WesternGeco v. ION」判決暨其可能影響，聖島智慧財產權實務報導，第20卷第9期，2018年9月20日，網址：https://www.saint-island.com.tw/TW/Knowledge/Knowledge_Info.aspx?IT=Know_0_1&CID=521&ID=11999.新時代法律學社，挖角竊密戰3》立法技術不到位奢談「國家核心關鍵技術」保護－國安與兩岸修法草案亟待優化，新新聞，2021年9月8日，網址：https://new7.storm.mg/article/392590610.謝明均，歐盟預計投入4700萬歐元強化中小企業智慧財產權的保護，科技法律研究所，2022年1月，網址：https://stli.iii.org.tw/article-detail.aspx?tp=1&d=8773&no=6411.聯華電子新聞中心，聯電與美國司法部就營業秘密案達成和解協議，2020年10月29日，網址：https://www.umc.com/zh-TW/News/press_release/Content/corporate/20201029a12.TRIPS英文版與中文版，經濟部智慧財產局網站： https://www.tipo.gov.tw/tw/cp-128-207126-bb3f9-1.html13.TechNews，預估 GCP、AWS 伺服器建置年增25%~30%，成推動全球伺服器需求關鍵助力，TechNews科技新報，2021年4月19日，網址：https://technews.tw/2021/04/19/gcp-aws-25-to-30/（七）其他1.台灣營業秘密保護促進協會2020年和法務部合作拍攝之宣傳短片《不能說的秘密》，網址：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptDNXmd8tUg2.國家安全法部分條文修正草案總說明，法務部，2021年7月21日，網址：https://join.gov.tw/policies/detail/aff65287-66cd-4ea3-b4e6-e6ac5fbb1871二、英文（依姓氏字母排序）（一）專書1.Cedric Ryngaert, JURISDICTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS (2008).2.L. Ray Patterson & Stanley W. Lindberg, THE NATURE OF COPYRIGHT: A LAW OF USERS’ RIGHTS, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA PRESS (1991)3.Samuel W. Buell, Capital Offenses: Business Crime and Punishment in America’s Corporate Age, W.W. NORTON & CO (2016)（二）期刊論著1.Alan J. Tracey, The Contract in the Trade Secret Ballroom – A Forgotten Dance Partner?, 16 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 47, 48-88 (2007)2.Alexander Peukert, Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in Intellectual Property Law (April 19, 2010), Günther Handl, Joachim Zekoll & Peer Zumbansen (eds), Beyond Territoriality: Transnational Legal Authority in an Age of Globalization, QUEEN MARY STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, Brill Academic Publishing, Leiden/Boston, 189-228 (2012) Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=15922633.Aaron D. Simowitz, Siting Intangibles, 48 N.Y.U J. INT’L L. & POL. 259-320 (2015). Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=24568114.Aaron D. Simowitz, The Extraterritoriality Formalisms, CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW, Vol. 51, No.2, 377-411 (2019). Available at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/4165.C. Own Paepke, An Economic Interpretation of the Misappropriation Doctrine: Common Law Protection for Investments in Innovation, 2 HIGH TECH. L.J. 55-89 (1987)6.Chris Carr, Jack Morton & Jerry Furniss, The Economic Espionage Act: Bear Trap or Mouse Trap?, 8 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 159-209 (2000). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3117997.Chris Carr & Larry Gorman, The Revictimization of Companies by the Stock Market Who Report Trade Secret Theft Under the Economic Espionage Act, 57 BUS. LAW 25-53 (2001–2002)8.Charles Doyle, Stealing Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage: An Overview of the Economic Espionage Act, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS LIBRARIES, 1-16 (August 19, 2016)9.Conor Tucker, The DTSA’s Federalism Problem: Federal Court Jurisdiction over Trade Secrets, 28 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 1, 4-65 (2017)10.C. Paul Rogers, Why Do Bad Antitrust Decisions Sometimes Make Good Law? The Alcoa and Brown Shoe Examples (2018). SMU LAW REVIEW, Vol. 71, No. 1 (2018), SMU DEDMAN SCHOOL OF LAW LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER No. 387, 97-126. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=316801711.David Cotriss, Blame Game: Cyber Espionage, SC MAGAZINE (Nov. 1, 2013). Available at: http://www.scmagazine.com//blame-game-cyber-espionage/printarticle/31638412.Edward L. Rholl, Inconsistent Application of the Extraterritorial Provisions of the Sherman Act: A Judicial Response Based Upon the Much Maligned Effects Test, 73 MARQ. L. REV. 435-476 (1990)13.Elizabeth A. Rowe, and Giulia C. Farrior, Revisiting Trade Secret Extraterritoriality, BOSTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LAW, Vol. 25, 2019, 432-450 (january 5, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=346490514.Franklin A. Gevurtz, Determining Extraterritoriality, 56 WM. & MARY L. REV. 341, 341-407 (2014)15.Geraldine Szott Moohr, The Problematic Role of Criminal Law in Regulating the Use of Information: The Case of the Economic Espionage Act, 80 N.C.L. REV. 853-920 (2002)16.Graeme W. Austin, Importing Kazaa–Exporting Grokster, 22 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGHTECH. L.J. 577-619 (2006)17.Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Developing a Private International Intellectual Property Law: The Demise of Territoriality?, 51 WM. & MARY L. REV. 711, 713-800 (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol51/iss2/1218.Grosse Ruse-Khan and Thomas Jaeger, Policing Patents Worldwide? – EC Border Measures Against Transiting Generic Drugs Under EC and WTO Intellectual Property Regimes, IIC 40,5, 502-538 (2009)19.Joel R. Paul, Comity in International Law, 32 HARV. INT’L L.J.1 , 1-77 (1991)20.John Patrick Kelsh, Subafilms, Ltd. v. Mgm-Pathe Communications Co., the Berne Convention, and the Extraterritorial Application of the Copyright Act, 90 NW. U. L. REV. 1839 (1996)21.James H.A. Pooley, Mark A. Lemley & Peter Toren, Understanding the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, 5 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 177-229 (1997)22.J. Thomas Coffin, The Extraterritorial Application of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, 23 HASTINGS INT’L &REV., 527-555 (2000)23.Jeffrey H. Smith, Call Me, Maybe? The Seventh Circuit`s Call in Motorola Mobility, 90 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 2063-2095 (2015)24.Jeffrey A. Pade and Thomas A. Counts, Trade Secrets Litigation Concerning Foreign Acts, DEFENSE COUNSEL JOURNAL, 1-17, January 201825.Jada M. Colon, The Court Must Play its Interpretative Role: Defending The Defend Trade Secrets Act’s Extraterritorial Reach, 3 U. CIN. INTELL. PROP. & COMPUTER L.J. 1-19 (2018)26.John D. Hawkins, The Defend Trade Secrets Act and Foreign Theft: The Application of the Act to Extraterritorial Misappropriation, 26 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 289-302 (2020)27.Katzenbach, Conflicts on an Unruly Horse, 65 YALE L.J. 1087-1956 (1956)28.Kenneth J. Arrow, Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in THE RATE AND DIRECTION OF INVENTIVE ACTIVITY (Richard R. Nelson ed., 1962), 609-626. Available at: https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c2144/c2144.pdf29.Katherine Linton, The Importance of Trade Secrets: New Directions in International Trade Policy Making and Empirical Research, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE AND ECONOMICS, 1-17, published electronically September 2016. Available at: http://www.usitc.gov/journals30.Lynn C. Tyler, Trade Secrets in Indiana: Property vs. Relationship, 31 IND.L. REV. 339-351 (1998)31.Mark A. Lemley, The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights, STANFORD LAW REVIEW, Vol. 61, 311(June 1, 2008), STANFORD LAW AND ECONOMICS OLIN WORKING PAPER No. 358, 312-353. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=115516732.Matthew N. Bathon, IP Enforcement: Domestic and Foreign Litigants in the ITC and U.S. District Courts, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA EAST ASIA LAW REVIEW, vol.10, 1-12 (2014)33.Maggie Gardner, RJR Nabisco and the Runaway Canon, 102 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW, 134-150 (2016)34.Melanie Reid, A Comparative Approach to Economic Espionage: Is Any Nation Effectively Dealing with this Global Threat?, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI LAW REVIEW, Vol. 70, No. 1, 2016, 757-829 (March 16, 2016) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=4468&context=umlr35.Note, American Adjudication of Transnational Securities Fraud, 89 HARV.L.REV 553 (1976)36.Najeeb Samie, The Doctrine of Effects and the Extraterritorial Application of Antitrust Laws, 14 U. MIAMI INTER-AM. L. REV. 23-59 (1982)37.Russell J Weintraub, The Extraterritorial Application of Antitrust and Securities Laws: An Inquiry into the Utility of a “Choice-of-Law” Approach, 70 TEX. L. REV. 1799-1850 (1992)38.Robin J. Effron, Secrets and Spies: Extraterritorial Application of the Economic Espionage Act and the TRIPS Agreement, 78 N.Y.U. L. REV., 1475-1517 (2003)39.Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss and Orly Lobel, Economic Espionage as Reality or Rhetoric: Equating Trade Secrecy with National Security (January 19, 2016). LEWIS & CLARK LAW REVIEW, San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 16-207, 419-474 (2016)40.Rochelle Dreyfuss & Linda Silberman, Misappropriation on a Global Scale: Extraterritoriality and Applicable Law in Transborder Trade Secrecy Cases, 8 CYBARIS INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 265, 266-326 (2017)41.Susan W. Brenner and Anthony C. Crescenzi, State-Sponsored Crime: The Futility of the Economic Espionage Act, 28 HOUS. J. INT’L L. 389-464 (2006)42.Steven E. Feldman & Sherry L. Rollo, Extraterritorial Protection of Trade Secret Rights in China: Do Section 337 Actions at the ITC Really Prevent Trade Secret Theft Abroad?, 11 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L 523-547 (2012)43.Samuel J. LaRoque, Reverse Engineering and Trade Secrets in the Post-Alice World, KANSAS LAW REVIEW, Kansas Law Review Inc. 2017: vol. 66(2), 427-457.44.Timothy Richard. Holbrook, Extraterritoriality in U.S. Patent Law, 49 WM. & MARY L. REV. 2119-2192 (2008)45.Timothy Richard. Holbrook, Extraterritoriality and Proximate Cause After WesternGeco (October 2, 2018), YALE JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY, vol. 21, 192-226 (2019), Emory Legal Studies Research Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=325966746.Timothy Richard. Holbrook, Is There a New Extraterritoriality in Intellectual Property? COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF LAW & THE ARTS 44(4), 458-509 (2021). Available at: https://doi.org/10.52214/jla.v44i4.8193 or SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=375762747.Thomas Reilly, Economic Espionage Charges Under Title 18 U.S.C. 1831: Getting Charges Approved and the “Foreign Instrumentality” Element, 57 U.S. ATT’YS BULL. 24 (2009)48.Thomas F. Cotter, Extraterritorial Damages in Copyright Law, 73 FLORIDA LAW REVIEW, 1-54 (April 6, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=382523849.Wendy J. Gordon, Intellectual Property. Chapter 28 of THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF LEGAL STUDIES, Oxford University Press, edited by Peter Can and Mark Tushnet, 617-646 (October 2003). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=41300150.William S. Dodge, Morrison`s Effects Test., 40 SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW (2011), 687-696. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=185163851.William S. Dodge, The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality in Two Steps, 110 AM. J. INT’L L. UBOUND, 45-50 (2016)52.William S. Dodge, The New Presumption Against Extraterritoriality, 133 HARVARD LAW REVIEW (June 29, 2019), 1582-1654. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=342933653.Xuan-Thao Nguyen, For Canadian Love of Trader Joe’s First Sale Doctrine, Reputational Harm, and Lanham Act’s Extraterritoriality, B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. vol. 25:2, 572-596 (Oct. 2019)（三）研究報告1.AIPLA (American Intellectual Property Law Association), 2019 Report of the Economic Survey, AIPLA, September 20192.Committee on the Judiciary, DEFEND TRADE SECRET ACT OF 2016, H.REPT.114-529, 16. (2016). Available at: https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt529/CRPT-114hrpt529.pdf3.Department of Justice, Prosecuting Intellectual Property Crimes Manual (Fourth Edition, 2013)4.Douglas C. Lippoldt, Mark F. Schultz, Uncovering Trade Secrets - An Empirical Assessment of Economic Implications of Protection for Undisclosed Data, OECD TRADE POLICY PAPERS, No. 167 (2014) Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5jxzl5w3j3s6-en.pdf?expires=1649219112&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=AEE70D30DCC89A87F1B3349E74F591785.Economics and Statistics Administration and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus, U.S. Department of Commerce (March 2012). Available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/news/publications/IP_Report_March_2012.pdf6.European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property, Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property: The CLIP Principles and Commentary (CLIP), OXFORD (2013)7.ITC, Recent Trends in U.S. Services Trade: 2021 Annual Report, April 2021, 33-4. Available at: https://www.usitc.gov/publications/industry_econ_analysis_332/2021/recent_trends_us_services_trade_2021_annual_report.htm8.Jenner& Block, Trade Secret Update: Key Developments and Issues to Watch in Trade Secret Law, JENNER& BLOCK, Spring 2021, 13. Available at: https://jenner.com/library/publications/208349.Mcafee Center for Strategic and International Studies, Net Losses: Estimating the Global Cost of Cybercrime, MCAFEE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (June, 2014). Available at: https://www.combattingcybercrime.org/files/virtual-library/phenomena-challenges-cybercrime/net-losses%E2%80%93estimating-the-global-cost-of-cybercrime-%28economic-impact-of-cybercrime-ii%29.pdf10.Nygh & Pocar, Report of the Special Commission, HCCH Prel.-Doc. No. 11 of August 2000 (1999). Available at: https://assets.hcch.net/upload/wop/jdgmpd11.pdf11.National Science Foundation (NSF) and U.S. Census Bureau, Business R&D and Innovation Survey (BRDIS):2015, NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING STATISTICS (NCSES), 2015. Available at: https://www.nsf.gov/ncses/nsf18313/12.Office of The National Counterintelligence Executive, Foreign Spies Stealing U.S. Economic Secrets in Cyberspace: Report to Congress on Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage 2009-2011 (October 2011)13.The Sedona Conference, Framework for Analysis on Trade Secret Issues Across International Borders: Extraterritorial Reach, A Project of The Sedona Conference Working Group on Trade Secrets (WG12), March 2021 Public Comment Version14.WIPO, Composite Study on Protection of Traditional Knowledge, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/8，第61點，THE WIPO REPORT ON FACT-FINDING MISSIONS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE (1998-1999)（四）判決1.Am. Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 (1909)2.Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987)3.AT & T Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 414 F.3d 1366 (2005)4.Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp, 546 U.S. 500 (2006)5.Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Ficeto, 677 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2012)6.Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462(1985)7.Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009)8.Brake Parts Inc. v. Lewis, No. 5:09-cv-00132, 2010 WL 3470198 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 31, 2010)9.Corning Glass Works v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com`n, 799 F.2d 1559 (1986)10.Clement Comm’cns v. Am. Future Sys., No. 2:89- cv-06280, 1990 WL 106762 (E.D. Pa. July 19, 1990)11.Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries AB, 11 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir. 1993)12.Cedeno v. Intech Grp., Inc., 733 F. Supp. 2d 471, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)13.Cedeno v. Castillo, 457 F. App’x 35 (2d Cir. 2012)14.Dongelewicz v. First E. Bank, 80 F. Supp. 2d 339 (M.D. Pa.1999)15.Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002)16.Datacarrier S.A. v. WOCCU Servs. Grp, Inc., 221 F. Supp. 1078, 1081 (W.D. Wis. 2016)17.E.I. du Pont & Co. v. Masland, 244 U.S. 100 (1917)18.E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co. v. Christopher, 431 F.2d 1012 (5th Cir. 1970)19.E.E.O.C. v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (1991)20.European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 2011 WL 84395721.Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Indus. Corp., No. , 1996 WL 724734, *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 1996)22.Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947)23.Gray Co. v. Firstenberg Machinery Co., Inc., 913 F.2d 758 (9th Cir. 1990)24.Geophysical Serv. Inc. v. TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co., 850 F.3d 785, 799 (5th Cir. 2017)25.Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958)26.H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989)27.Harris Rutsky Co. v. Bell Clements, 328 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003)28.International Shoe Co v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)29.Iverson v. Grant, 946 F. Supp. 1404, 1411 (D.S.D. 1996)30.In re Le-Nature’s, Inc.v. Krones, Inc., et al., 2011 WL 2112533, *2 n.3 (W.D. Pa. May 26, 2011)31.Jennings v. Auto Meter Prods. Inc., 495 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 2007)32.J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011)33.Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp, 416 U.S. 470 (1974)34.Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013)35.Leasco Data Processing Equip. Corp. v. Maxwell, 468 F.2d 1326 (2d Cir.1972)36.Los Angeles News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int’l, Ltd., 340 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2003)37.Litecubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc., 523 F.3d 1353 (2008)38.Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BIScience Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00483-JRG, 2019 WL 2084426 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2019)39.Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2001)40.Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007)41.Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2007)42.Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010)43.Minn-Chem, Inc v. Agrium, Inc., 683 F.3d 845, 857 (7th Cir. 2012)44.Micron Tech., Inc. v. United Microelectronics Corp., No. 17-CV-06932-MMC, 2019 WL 1959487 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2019)45.MACOM Tech. Solutions Inc. v. Litrinium, Inc., No. SACV 19-220 JVS (JDEx), 2019 WL 4282906 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2019)46.Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd., 436 F.Supp.3d 1150 (2020)47.Peabody v. Norfolk, 98 MASS. 452 (1868)48.Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1994)49.Reebok Intern., Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc., 970 F.2d 552 (1992)50.Rundquist v. Vapiano SE, 798 F. Supp. 2d 102, 123 (D.D.C. 2011)51.Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015)52.RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016)53.Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 106 F.2d 45 (1939)54.Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952)55.Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)56.Sedima,S.P.R.L. v.Imrex Co.,473 U.S. 479,496 n.14 (1985)57.Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM–Pathe Communications Co., 24 F.3d 1088 (1994)58.Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co., v. International Trade Commission, 623 F. App’x 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2015)59.Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co., v. International Trade Commission, No. 16-428, 2017 WL 69209 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2017)60.Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass`n, 549 F.2d 597 (9th Cir.1976)61.Thermodyn Corp. v. 3M Co., 593 F. Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Ohio 2008)62.TianRui Group Co. v. ITC, 661 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011)63.Trader Joe`s Company v. Hallatt, 835 F.3d 960 (2016)64.U.S. v. United Microelectronics Corporation, et al., 3:18-CR-00465 MMC, Unsealed Indictment65.U.S. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No.3:12-CR-137, D.I. 3, Unsealed Indictment66.U.S. v. LSL Biotechnologies, 379 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2004)67.United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 44 F. Supp. 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)68.United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945)69.United States v. Chao Fan Xu, 706 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2013)70.vPersonalize Inc. v. Magnetize Consultants Ltd., 437 F.Supp.3d 860 (2020)71.Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 556 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1977)72.World Wild Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)73.W.D. Court of New York, GB Marketing v. Gerolsteiner, 782 F.Supp. 763 (1991)74.WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., 953 F.Supp.2d 731 (2013)75.WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., 791 F.3d 1340 (2015)76.WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., 837 F.3d 1358 (2016)77.WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 138 S.Ct. 2129 (2018)78.Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L`Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006)（五）國際貿易委員會（ITC）之決定報告1.Certain Processes for the Manufacture of Skinless Sausage Casings and Resulting Product, Inv. No. 337-TA-148/169 (July 31, 1984)2.Certain Rubber Resins and Processes For Manufacturing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-849 (August 2018)3.Certain Botulinum Toxin Products, Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same, Inv. No 337-TA-1145 (December 16, 2020)4.Certain Botulinum Toxin Products, Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same, Inv. No 337-TA-1145 (December 16, 2020), Comments of the American Antitrust Institute on the Public-Interest Issues（六）網路資料1.A New F.B.I. Focus: H.R. Comm. on Appropriations, Subcomm. for the Dep’t of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, 107th Cong. (2002) [hereinafter Mueller Testimony] (testimony of Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI). Available at: https://www2.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/mueller062102.htm2.Andrew S. Boutros and Alex Meier, An Endangered Claim Reemerges: The Defend Trade Secrets Act Breathes New Life Into Trade-Secrets-Based RICO Claims, White Collar Crime Report, 12 WCR 243 (2017). Available at: https://www.seyfarth.com/a/web/7094/3G9C1Q/boutrosmeierpublished.pdf3.Adam R. Hess and David P. Prueter, The ITC Expands its Approach to Issuing Cease and Desist Orders, NATIONAL LAW REVIEW, Volume X, Number 199, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, July 17, 2020. Available at: https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/corporate/publications/2017/05/the_itcs_evolving_approach_to_cease_and_desist_orders.pdf4.Bill Watson, In Botox Dispute, ITC Claims Power to Block Imports For Whatever Reason it Wants, ITC POLICY PROJECT, January 29, 2021. Available at: https://www.itcpolicy.com/blog/2021/1/29/in-botox-dispute-itc-claims-power-to-block-imports-for-whatever-reason-it-wants5.Bret Cohen, Michael Renaud & Nicholas Armington, Explaining the Defend Trade Secrets Act, BUSINESS LAW TODAY (Sept. 2016) Available at: https://businesslawtoday.org/2016/09/explaining-the-defend-trade-secrets-act/6.David Vance Lucas, International Harmonization of Trade Secret Rights and Remedies, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Dec 15, 2016. Available at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/international-harmonization-of-trade-67495/7.Ellen Nakashima, Obama Orders Voluntary Security Standards for Critical Industries’ Computer Networks, THE WASHINGTON POST (Feb. 12, 2013). Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-voluntary-security-standards-for-critical-industries-computer-networks/2013/02/12/e1d0a586-755e-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html8.“F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller designated espionage as the F.B.I.’s number two priority.” Investigative Programs Counterintelligence Division, The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Available at: https://www2.fbi.gov/hq/ci/economic.htm9.FBI National Press Office, FBI Announces Economic Espionage Awareness Campaign, FBI National Press Office (July 23, 2015). Available at: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-announces-economic-espionage-awareness-campaign10.Steve Whitehead, Corporate Counterintelligence—Protecting Business Information, COMPUTER BUS. REV. (June 1, 2013) Available at: Corporate counterintelligence – protecting business information - Computer Business Review Africa (cbr.co.za)11.Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Economic Espionage And Trade Secret Theft: Are Our Laws Adequate For Today’s Threats? Hearing Before Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, Subcomm. on Crime and Terrorism, 113th Cong. (May 13, 2014)12.U.S. Department of Justice, Taiwan Company Pleads Guilty to Trade Secret Theft in Criminal Case Involving PRC State-Owned Company, October 28, 2020. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/taiwan-company-pleads-guilty-trade-secret-theft-criminal-case-involving-prc-state-owned13.U.S. Department of Justice, Kolon Industries Inc. Pleads Guilty for Conspiring to Steal DuPont Trade Secrets Involving Kevlar Technology, April 30, 2015. Available at: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/richmond/news/press-releases/kolon-industries-inc.-pleads-guilty-for-conspiring-to-steal-dupont-trade-secrets-involving-kevlar-technology14.William S. Dodge, The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality Still Does Not Apply to Jurisdictional Statutes, OPINIO JURIS (July 1, 2016). Available at: http://opiniojuris.org/2016/07/01/32658/（七）其他1.移審請願書：On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Sino Legend Chemical Co., v. ITC) 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法律科際整合研究所
107652009資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107652009 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 沈宗倫 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) 徐瑞婕 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) HSU, Jui-Chieh en_US dc.creator (作者) 徐瑞婕 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) HSU, Jui-Chieh en_US dc.date (日期) 2022 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Sep-2022 15:09:26 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Sep-2022 15:09:26 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Sep-2022 15:09:26 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0107652009 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141659 - 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) 107652009 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隨著科技化與全球化時代之來臨，智慧財產權法之屬地主義須面臨某種程度之轉變，以因應日益興盛的跨境智慧財產權紛爭。本文將智慧財產權法制之域外效力分為三大問題，分別為域外效力之定性、域外效力之範圍，以及損害賠償之範圍，並集中於討論域外效力之範圍，即針對涉外個案，本國法的保護範圍。 2016年美國最高法院正式建立「兩步驟架構」（two-step framework），本文認為，「法律原則上無域外效力」之推定不應一律適用於全部個案，而應作為解釋立法者意圖之工具。此外，傳統「兩步驟架構」確認系爭法規具域外效力之後，對於涉外個案如何適用，並無具體指示，造成法院難以操作。因此，本文重新建構「新兩步驟架構」，使法院處理涉外個案中營業秘密法制擴張的屬地法效時，有更為清楚且具體的判斷步驟。 本文認為，涉外案件的判斷流程包含：國際裁判管轄權之確立、準據法之選擇，以及域外效力之範圍，即以「新兩步驟架構」判斷系爭法規之域外效力。「新兩步驟架構」之第一步驟，係探究立法者是否意圖使該法規域外適用於涉外個案，若是，則第二步驟為屬地法效之範圍判斷，本文建議採「統一權衡標準」（Uniformly-applied Balancing Test），以三個要件判斷域外適用之範圍；若否，則第二步驟應以「重心標準」（focus test）判斷系爭法規於個案之境內適用範圍。 本文以「新兩步驟架構」檢視美國337條款、經濟間諜法（EEA）與防衛營業秘密法（DTSA），分析法規與相關案例後提出本文意見，接著分析台灣營業秘密法與域外效力相關的規範，並提出立法建議。本文將營業秘密境外侵害之行為類型化，包含涉及民事責任的私法行為，以及涉及刑事責任的犯罪行為，期能細緻化營業秘密涉外規範，建構更為全面且層級化的營業秘密保護網絡。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) With the advent of the era of technology and globalization, the territorialism of intellectual property law must face a certain degree of transformation to cope with the growing cross-border intellectual property disputes. The extraterritoriality of intellectual property law is divided into three major issues, the characterization of extraterritoriality, the scope of extraterritoriality, and the scope of the compensation for damage. The master’s thesis focuses on the scope of extraterritoriality, which is the protection scope of domestic law for foreign-related cases. The Supreme Court of the United States officially established the “two-step framework” in 2016. The thesis believes that the basic premise of a legal system that the domestic law governs domestically should be a tool to explain legislative intent, rather than apply to all cases without exception. In addition, after the traditional “two-step framework” confirmed the extraterritoriality of the law, there is no specific instruction on how to apply it to foreign-related cases, making it difficult for the courts to operate. Therefore, the “new two-step framework” is reconstructed, giving the courts a clear and more specific judgment standard to deal with the expansion of the territorial effect of the trade secrets laws in foreign-related cases. The judgment process of foreign-related cases includes the jurisdiction to adjudicate in an international sense, the choice of applicable law, and the scope of extraterritoriality, the last one is to judge the extraterritoriality of the law with the “new two-step framework”. The first step of the “new two-step framework” is to explore whether the legislators intend to make the law extraterritorial. If so, the second step is to judge the expanded scope of the territorial effect of the law in the foreign-related case, and the “Uniformly-applied Balancing Test” with three elements is recommended. If not, then the domestic scope of application of the law shall be judged by the “focus test”. The “new two-step framework” was used to examine the U.S. Section 337, the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, and the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, including analyzing the laws and relevant cases, and rendering some opinions. Then the thesis analyzes some Acts related to the extraterritoriality of trade secrets in Taiwan and provides legislative suggestions. The cross-border misappropriation of trade secrets is categorized into private acts which bear civil liability, and criminal acts which bear criminal liability, hoping to refine the foreign-related laws of trade secrets and build a more comprehensive and hierarchical trade secret protection network. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究動機與目的 1第二節 研究方法與架構 4第二章 智慧財產權法之屬地主義與域外效力 7第一節 智慧財產權與屬地主義 7第一項 簡介 7第二項 轉變 10第二節 國際私法處理涉外案件之原理原則 11第一項 管轄權之確定 11第一款 英美法系國家 12一、最小接觸原則與合理公平原則 13二、不便利法庭原則 15（一）當事人利益 16（二）公共利益 17第二款 大陸法系國家 19第三款 小結 21第二項 準據法之適用 22第一款 權利本身之準據法 23第二款 權利侵害之準據法 25一、保護地法主義 26二、侵權行為地法主義 29第三款 權利讓與之準據法 30一、一般契約 30二、僱傭契約 34第三節 智慧財產權與域外效力 36第一項 域外效力之定性 36第二項 域外效力之範圍 38第一款 入境規範（Inbound Regulation） 39一、造成境內影響之境外直接侵權行為（Extraterritorial Activity with Local Effects as Direct Infringement） 39二、造成境內影響之境外間接侵權行為（Extraterritorial Activity with Local Effects as Secondary Infringement） 41三、部分發生於境內，部分發生於境外之侵權行為（Infringement Activity Occurring Partly Locally, Partly Abroad） 42第二款 出境規範（Outbound Regulation） 43一、造成境外影響之境內直接侵權行為（Local Activity with Extraterritorial Effects as Direct Infringement） 43二、單純過境之直接侵權行為（Mere Transit as Direct Infringement） 44三、與境外直接侵權相關之境內間接侵權行為（Local Secondary Infringement Related to Foreign Direct Infringement） 45第三項 損害賠償之範圍 50第四項 小結 53第四節 相關涉外案例 55第一項 WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018) 57第一款 案件事實 57第二款 法院見解 58第三款 本文意見 62第四款 四步驟分析架構 65第二項 Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952) 67第一款 案件事實 67第二款 法院見解 68第三款 本文意見 69第三項 Reebok Intern., Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc., 970 F.2d 552 (1992) 71第一款 案件事實 71第二款 法院見解 72第三款 本文意見 74第四項 United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945) 76第一款 案件事實 76第二款 法院見解 77第三款 修正效果標準 78第四款 本文意見 79第五項 Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America et al., 549 F. 2d 597 (1976) 79第一款 案件事實 79第二款 法院見解 80第三款 本文意見 82第六項 比較 83第三章 美國營業秘密境外侵害之法律分析 85第一節 概述 85第一項 營業秘密之性質 85第一款 契約法理論 85第二款 侵權行為法理論 86第三款 反不正競爭理論 88第四款 財產權理論 89一、鼓勵創新與提供誘因 90二、鼓勵傳播與資訊揭露 91第二項 與其他智慧財產權之比較 94第一款 概念 94第二款 要件 96第三款 主張 99第三項 營業秘密與屬地主義 100第四項 營業秘密之政策趨向 102第二節 兩步驟架構 104第一項 簡介 104第二項 RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016) 106第一款 反勒索及受賄組織法（RICO） 106第二款 案件事實 108第三款 法院見解 109一、RICO第1962條的禁止規定，是否適用於境外行為 109二、RICO第1964條的民事賠償，是否適用於境外損害 111第四款 本案評析 112一、「兩步驟架構」之第一步驟 112二、「兩步驟架構」之第二步驟 125第三項 重新建構涉外案件之判斷流程 130第一款 國際裁判管轄權之確立 130第二款 準據法之選擇 131第三款 域外效力之範圍 134一、「新兩步驟架構」之第一步驟 134二、「新兩步驟架構」之第二步驟 135第三節 337條款 136第一項 簡介 136第二項 案例 140第一款 TianRui Group Co. v. ITC, 661 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 140一、案件事實 140二、實務見解 141（一）國際貿易委員會 141（二）聯邦巡迴上訴法院 142三、本案評析 144（一）337條款之解釋適用 144（二）「新兩步驟架構」之應用 147第二款 SI Group v. 華奇 148一、實務見解 148（一）中國 148（二）美國 149二、華奇的移審請願書 152（一）聯邦巡迴上訴法院之錯誤 153（二）337條款的適用範圍，乃最高法院須重新檢視的重要問題 156三、本案評析 157第三款 肉毒桿菌案 160一、案件事實 160二、實務見解 161（一）管轄權 161（二）原告適格 162（三）摧毀或嚴重損害美國本土產業 163三、本案評析 165（一）337條款之解釋適用 165（二）「新兩步驟架構」之應用 167第三項 小結 168第四節 經濟間諜法（Economic Espionage Act of 1996, EEA） 170第一項 簡介 170第二項 案例 176第一款 U.S. v. UMC, et al., 3:18-CR-00465 MMC 176一、第1837條第1款 177二、第1837條第2款 178第二款 U.S. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No.3:12-CR-137, D.I. 3 180第三項 評析 183第一款 屬地主義 183第二款 利益平衡 186第三款 實務執行 190第四款 本文意見 191第五節 防衛營業秘密法（Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, DTSA） 193第一項 簡介 193第二項 第1837條第1款 196第三項 第1837條第2款 197第一款 學說見解 198一、效果標準（Effect Test） 198二、權衡標準（Balancing Test） 200第二款 本文意見 202第三款 實務案例 204一、“But for”標準 204（一）Micron Tech., Inc. v. United Microelectronics Corp., No. 17-CV-06932-MMC, 2019 WL 1959487 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2019) 204二、“in furtherance of”標準 215（一）Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BIScience Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00483-JRG, 2019 WL 2084426 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2019) 216（二）MACOM Tech. Solutions Inc. v. Litrinium, Inc., No. SACV 19-220 JVS (JDEx), 2019 WL 4282906 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2019) 219（三）Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd., 436 F.Supp.3d 1150 (2020) 226（四） vPersonalize Inc. v. Magnetize Consultants Ltd., 437 F.Supp.3d 860 (2020) 234三、小結 237第四項 評析 239第六節 統整比較 241第四章 台灣營業秘密法之域外分析 246第一節 「新兩步驟架構」之應用 246第二節 營業秘密刑事涉外規範 247第一項 簡介 247第二項 第13條之2 250第一款 保護法益 250第二款 構成要件 251第三款 發動偵查 254第四款 實務作法 255第五款 小結 256第三項 評析 257第一款 域外效力之明文規範 257第二款 域外效力之適用範圍 259第三節 營業秘密民事涉外規範 261第一項 簡介 261第二項 評析 263第一款 域外效力之明文規範 263第二款 域外效力之適用範圍 264第四節 營業秘密之邊境管制 266第一項 簡介 266第二項 評析 267第五節 未來展望 269第一項 國家安全法 270第一款 簡介 270第二款 評析 272一、定義模糊 272二、法人究責 274三、小結 276第二項 立法建議 276第一款 立法必要性 277第二款 類型化管制 278一、私法行為 278二、犯罪行為 279（一） 一般竊取營業秘密之境外犯罪行為 279（二） 涉及國家核心關鍵技術之境外犯罪行為 282（三） 涉及國家核心關鍵技術之經濟間諜行為 283第三款 小結 284第六節 本文意見 285第五章 結論 289參考文獻 299 zh_TW dc.format.extent 9835139 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107652009 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 營業秘密 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 域外效力 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 屬地法效 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 兩步驟架構 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 跨境侵害 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 境外侵害 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Trade Secret en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Extraterritoriality en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Territoriality en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Two-Step Framework en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Cross-Border Misappropriation of Trade Secret en_US dc.title (題名) 營業秘密境外侵害與屬地法效：以美國營業秘密相關法制為借鏡 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Cross-Border Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Territoriality: a Comparative Study on American Legal Frameworks for Trade Secret en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文（依姓氏筆畫排序）（一）專書1.王偉霖，營業秘密法理論與實務，元照，2020年5月，第3版。2.李瑞生，美國短暫過境管轄權之研究－以聯邦最高法院案例為中心，國際私法：管轄與選法理論之交錯，五南，2009年3月。3.法務部廉政署主編，聯合國及貪腐公約專題學術研討會論文集－我國之實踐與展望，法務部廉政署，2015年12月。4.丘宏達、陳純一，現代國際法，三民，2021年9月，修訂第4版。5.姜皇池，國際公法導論，新學林，2013年6月，第3版。6.柯澤東、吳光平，國際私法，元照，2020年10月，第6版。7.馬漢寶，國際私法總論各論，翰蘆，2021年1月，第3版。8.張靜，我國營業秘密法學的建構與開展：第一冊 營業秘密的基礎理論，新學林，2007年4月。9.謝銘洋，智慧財產權法，元照，2021年9月，第11版。10.薛波，元照英美法詞典，法律出版社，2003年。11.Jurgen Basedow，知的財產權分野における国際私法の確立，譯者：河野俊行、八並廉，收錄於河野俊行編知的財産権と渉外民事訴訟，弘文堂，2010年8月初版。（二）期刊論著1.王玉瓊，美國法上關於營業秘密之民事救濟－以法院判決之解析為中心，智慧財產權月刊，第214期，頁32-56，2016年10月。2.王千維，民事損害賠償責任法上因果關係之結構分析以及損害賠償之基本原則，政大法學評論，第60期，頁201-230，1998年12月。3.王千維，民事損害賠償責任成立要件上之因果關係、違法性與過失之內涵及其相互間之關係，中原財經法學，第8期，頁7-64，2002年6月。4.王欽彥，營業秘密侵害之準據法，輔仁法學第61期，頁87-176，2021年6月24日。5.王偉霖，簡評我國營業秘密新修正刑事規範－兼論美、日、陸營業秘密刑事規範，台灣法學雜誌，第254期，頁87-95，2014年8月。6.王偉霖，我國營業秘密刑事規範的再思考，法令月刊，第68卷第5期，頁64-90，2017年5月。7.王銘勇，域外侵害營業秘密罪法制研析，2014年第18屆全國科技法律研討會論文集，劉尚志主編，2014年。8.王銘勇，網路侵害境外營業秘密罪，月旦民商法雜誌，第72期，頁27-37，2021年6月。9.方元沂，論美國國際禮讓原則，華岡法粹，第55期，頁121-145，2013年10月。10.李惠宗，法律隱藏漏洞的發現與填補之法理基礎－司法院大法官違憲審查實踐的觀察，月旦法學雜誌，第185期，頁5-11，2010年10月。11.沈宗倫，營業秘密侵害之侵害者所得利益損害賠償—以營業秘密法第13條第1項第2款之合理詮釋為中心，台灣法律人第5期，頁33-48，2021年11月。12.吳光平，國際裁判管轄權地決定基準－總論上方法的考察，政大法學評論，第94期，頁267-334，2006年12月。13.吳光平，網際網路案件國際裁判管轄權之決定基準－以美國跨州網際網路案件之裁判管轄為中心，輔仁法學，第38期，頁33-110，2009年12月。14.吳從周，民法上之法律漏洞、類推適用與目的性限縮，東吳法律學報，第18卷第2期，頁103-140，2006年12月。15.林洲富，商標權之權利耗盡原則，月旦法學教室，第183期，頁31-33，2017年12月。16.林恩瑋，國際私法上「分割爭點(issue-by-issue)」方法之適用－以最高法院兩則判決為中心，政大法學評論，第119期，頁151-187，2011年2月。17.周妤軒、王立達，從國際法觀點看美國反托拉斯法域外效力－Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics案評析，月旦法學雜誌，第257期，頁143-164，2016年10月。18.林志潔，美國聯邦經濟間諜法之回顧與展望－兼論我國營業秘密法之刑罰化，科技法學評論，第13卷1期，頁1-67，2016年5月。19.洪志勳，台灣液晶電視產業的專利訴訟策略－以美國國際貿易委員會（ITC）為例，科技法律透析，第17卷第3期，頁21-26，2005年3月。20.洪三凱，評析我國智慧財產權邊境保護措施，全國律師，第22卷第10期，頁41-56，2018年10月。21.陳皓芸，專利法「販賣之要約」之界定－以跨國實施發明行為為中心，專利師，第26期，頁1-22，2016年7月。22.徐耀浤，以政策競爭吸引外國直接投資之研究，經濟研究年刊，第10期，頁399-422，2010年4月。23.許耀明，國際智慧財產權訴訟之國際管轄權決定、準據法選擇與法律適用之問題，玄奘法律學報，第8期，頁57-105，2007年12月。24.陳榮傳，專利權侵害的涉外民事訴訟（下）－以最高法院案例及新法的適用為中心，台灣法學雜誌，第216期，頁1-17，2013年1月。25.陳榮傳，涉外反競爭行為的管轄權與準據法，公平交易季刊，第22卷第2期，頁93-162，2014年4月。26.陳守煌、陳荔彤，國際刑事管轄權法律制度，法學叢刊，第58卷第1期，頁1-44，2013年1月。27.陳秉訓，論美國專利訴訟中對臺灣籍被告的對人管轄權－以2010至2011年間聯邦地方法院判決為中心，智慧財產權月刊，第164期，頁5-36，2012年8月。28.張哲倫，保護營業秘密之法理基礎暨其對侵權個案判斷之導引功能，智慧財產權月刊，第268期，頁6-27，2021年4月。29.章忠信，新法增訂侵害刑責，營業秘密更有保障，科技法律透析，第25卷第3期，頁4-9，2013年3月。30.黃本立，從AT&T判決看專利法治外法權－美國專利法第271條（f）項，智慧財產權月刊，第112期，頁52-66，2008年4月。31.曾勝珍、嚴惠妙，我國營業秘密法法制探討（上），全國律師，7月號，頁76-89，2015年7月。32.曾勝珍，美國經濟間諜法初探，中正大學法學集刊，第19期，頁71-146，2005年11月。33.曾勝珍，美國經濟間諜法施行成效之探討，財產法暨經濟法，第22期，頁71-146，2010年6月。34.溫祖德，從起訴裁量權論起訴政策及轉向計畫之訂定，檢察新論，第26期，頁27-41，2019年8月。35.劉尚志、王俊凱，美國國際貿易委員會之專利紛爭與台灣企業因應之道，日新半年刊，第6期，頁12-18，2006年1月。36.劉國讚，論植物發明之相當對價請求權－以日本訴訟實務為中心，智慧財產權月刊第117期，頁6-32，2008年9月。37.劉孔中，論智慧財產權之一般理論：有效促進公私資源交換與相互增益，洪範評論，第14輯，頁6-29，2012年10月。38.劉怡君、林志潔，從美國起訴聯電案比較經濟間諜行為之防制－從域外管轄到組織體責任，月旦法學雜誌，第297期，頁49-69，2020年2月。39.劉怡君，企業營業秘密案件法律風險之控管－以美國法制及實務為借鏡，全國律師，第25卷第6期，頁21-30，2021年6月。40.蔡華凱，國際裁判管轄總論之研究－以財產關係訴訟為中心，中正大學法學集刊，第17期，頁1-85，2004年10月。41.蔡華凱，涉外智慧財產民事事件之國際裁判管轄與準據法，中正大學法學集刊，第31期，頁57-115，2010年10月。42.蔡惟鈞，國際私法中契約衝突之規範－以「特徵性履行」為中心，華岡法粹，第59期，頁145-170，2015年12月。43.潘季翔、程小綾，調查機關受理侵害營業秘密告訴實務與案例探討，全國律師，6月號，頁31-37，2021年6月。44.駱志豪，TRIPS對營業秘密之保護，公平交易季刊第四卷第三期，頁61-79，1996年7月。45.謝宛蓁，我國營業秘密法制及爭議問題介紹－以刑事責任為中心，智慧財產權月刊，頁5-34，2013年10月。46.顏家琳，美國反托拉斯法域外適用的重量級法院裁定，公平交易委員會電子報第6期，頁1-2，2014年7月。47.蘇昱婷、劉尚志，台灣企業於美國國際貿易委員會專利訴訟之實證研究，智慧財產權月刊，第177期，頁56-104，2013年9月。（三）研究報告1.林明誼，營業秘密保護之研究，公務出國報告，2015年。2.法務部，統計摘要分析，違反營業秘密法案件統計分析，法務統計資料網，網址：https://www.rjsd.moj.gov.tw/RJSDWeb/common/WebList2.aspx?menu=AYA_SPECIAL_REPORT3.益思科技法律事務所，營業秘密法制之研究，經濟部智慧財產局，2008年5月。4.益思科技法律事務所，美國經濟間諜法案簡介，網址：www.is-law.com/old/ourdocuments/at0006ye.pdf5.調查局，本局偵辦侵害營業秘密案件統計資料，調查局網站，網址：https://www.mjib.gov.tw/EditPage/?PageID=f1ceb275-c17c-44d0-9d61-00a26b2326c2（四）判決1.最高法院104年度台上字第2197號判決2.智慧財產法院107年民專訴字第22號判決3.智慧財產法院107年度刑智上訴字第4號刑事判決4.(2011)沪二中民五(知)初字第50號5.(2013)沪高民三(知)終字第93號6.(2014)民申字第674號民事裁定7.(2016)沪民终501號（五）碩博士學位論文1.吳岱臻，營業秘密保護之認定與法院判決實務分析，南臺科技大學財經法律研究所碩士論文，2018年6月。2.何佳芳，論國際私法上屬人法之連繫因素，臺北大學法律學系碩士論文，2001年。3.林慧玲，美國經濟間諜法之研析－兼述我業因應之對策，東海大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2000年6月。4.林玠鋒，論涉外民事事件中當事人之法庭地選擇與法院之拒絕管轄，政治大學法律學系碩士論文，2005年。5.林季陽，涉外智慧財產紛爭事件之國際裁判管轄與準據法決定，台大科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文，2011年6月。6.林君宜，美國、歐盟及我國營業秘密侵害之比較研究－以民事救濟為中心，政治大學法律科際整合研究所碩士論文，2018年7月。7.周妤軒，反托拉斯法域外效力之國際法研究：以美國新近發展為中心，交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2016年7月。8.潘怡珍，不方便法院原則適用之研究，東海大學法律研究所碩士論文，2008年11月。（六）網路資料1.中央通訊社，企業智財調查報告 掌握智財管理策略新趨勢，科技法律研究所，2022年3月，網址：https://stli.iii.org.tw/news2019-detail.aspx?d=385&no=572.中華民國全國工業總會，對國安法及兩岸條例修法建議，中華民國全國工業總會，2022年6月，網址：http://www.cnfi.org.tw/front/bin/ptdetail.phtml?Part=magazine11106-627-13.立法院國會圖書館，外國法案介紹－營業秘密法，國會圖書館館訊，第18卷第1期（總133號）， 2017年2月。4.立法院國會圖書館，外國法案介紹－組織犯罪防制條例，國會圖書館館訊，第19卷第3期（總139號），2018年8月。5.朱子亮，美最高法院將討論關稅法337條是否適用發生在美國境外之侵害營業秘密行為：SINO LEGEND V. ITC，科技產業資訊室 (iKnow)， 2016年12月15日，網址：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=130366.李玟儀，中企挖角科技人才 台灣將修法防技術外流，德國之聲，2021年8月5日，網址：https://p.dw.com/p/3yYoV7.章忠信，杜邦之營業秘密保護案例，著作權筆記，2010年10月。8.張東揚，淺述美國聯邦最高法院2018年「WesternGeco v. ION」判決暨其可能影響，聖島智慧財產權實務報導，第20卷第9期，2018年9月20日，網址：https://www.saint-island.com.tw/TW/Knowledge/Knowledge_Info.aspx?IT=Know_0_1&CID=521&ID=11999.新時代法律學社，挖角竊密戰3》立法技術不到位奢談「國家核心關鍵技術」保護－國安與兩岸修法草案亟待優化，新新聞，2021年9月8日，網址：https://new7.storm.mg/article/392590610.謝明均，歐盟預計投入4700萬歐元強化中小企業智慧財產權的保護，科技法律研究所，2022年1月，網址：https://stli.iii.org.tw/article-detail.aspx?tp=1&d=8773&no=6411.聯華電子新聞中心，聯電與美國司法部就營業秘密案達成和解協議，2020年10月29日，網址：https://www.umc.com/zh-TW/News/press_release/Content/corporate/20201029a12.TRIPS英文版與中文版，經濟部智慧財產局網站： https://www.tipo.gov.tw/tw/cp-128-207126-bb3f9-1.html13.TechNews，預估 GCP、AWS 伺服器建置年增25%~30%，成推動全球伺服器需求關鍵助力，TechNews科技新報，2021年4月19日，網址：https://technews.tw/2021/04/19/gcp-aws-25-to-30/（七）其他1.台灣營業秘密保護促進協會2020年和法務部合作拍攝之宣傳短片《不能說的秘密》，網址：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptDNXmd8tUg2.國家安全法部分條文修正草案總說明，法務部，2021年7月21日，網址：https://join.gov.tw/policies/detail/aff65287-66cd-4ea3-b4e6-e6ac5fbb1871二、英文（依姓氏字母排序）（一）專書1.Cedric Ryngaert, JURISDICTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS (2008).2.L. Ray Patterson & Stanley W. Lindberg, THE NATURE OF COPYRIGHT: A LAW OF USERS’ RIGHTS, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA PRESS (1991)3.Samuel W. Buell, Capital Offenses: Business Crime and Punishment in America’s Corporate Age, W.W. NORTON & CO (2016)（二）期刊論著1.Alan J. Tracey, The Contract in the Trade Secret Ballroom – A Forgotten Dance Partner?, 16 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 47, 48-88 (2007)2.Alexander Peukert, Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in Intellectual Property Law (April 19, 2010), Günther Handl, Joachim Zekoll & Peer Zumbansen (eds), Beyond Territoriality: Transnational Legal Authority in an Age of Globalization, QUEEN MARY STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, Brill Academic Publishing, Leiden/Boston, 189-228 (2012) Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=15922633.Aaron D. Simowitz, Siting Intangibles, 48 N.Y.U J. INT’L L. & POL. 259-320 (2015). Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=24568114.Aaron D. Simowitz, The Extraterritoriality Formalisms, CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW, Vol. 51, No.2, 377-411 (2019). Available at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/4165.C. Own Paepke, An Economic Interpretation of the Misappropriation Doctrine: Common Law Protection for Investments in Innovation, 2 HIGH TECH. L.J. 55-89 (1987)6.Chris Carr, Jack Morton & Jerry Furniss, The Economic Espionage Act: Bear Trap or Mouse Trap?, 8 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 159-209 (2000). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3117997.Chris Carr & Larry Gorman, The Revictimization of Companies by the Stock Market Who Report Trade Secret Theft Under the Economic Espionage Act, 57 BUS. LAW 25-53 (2001–2002)8.Charles Doyle, Stealing Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage: An Overview of the Economic Espionage Act, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS LIBRARIES, 1-16 (August 19, 2016)9.Conor Tucker, The DTSA’s Federalism Problem: Federal Court Jurisdiction over Trade Secrets, 28 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 1, 4-65 (2017)10.C. Paul Rogers, Why Do Bad Antitrust Decisions Sometimes Make Good Law? The Alcoa and Brown Shoe Examples (2018). SMU LAW REVIEW, Vol. 71, No. 1 (2018), SMU DEDMAN SCHOOL OF LAW LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER No. 387, 97-126. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=316801711.David Cotriss, Blame Game: Cyber Espionage, SC MAGAZINE (Nov. 1, 2013). Available at: http://www.scmagazine.com//blame-game-cyber-espionage/printarticle/31638412.Edward L. Rholl, Inconsistent Application of the Extraterritorial Provisions of the Sherman Act: A Judicial Response Based Upon the Much Maligned Effects Test, 73 MARQ. L. REV. 435-476 (1990)13.Elizabeth A. Rowe, and Giulia C. Farrior, Revisiting Trade Secret Extraterritoriality, BOSTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LAW, Vol. 25, 2019, 432-450 (january 5, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=346490514.Franklin A. Gevurtz, Determining Extraterritoriality, 56 WM. & MARY L. REV. 341, 341-407 (2014)15.Geraldine Szott Moohr, The Problematic Role of Criminal Law in Regulating the Use of Information: The Case of the Economic Espionage Act, 80 N.C.L. REV. 853-920 (2002)16.Graeme W. Austin, Importing Kazaa–Exporting Grokster, 22 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGHTECH. L.J. 577-619 (2006)17.Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Developing a Private International Intellectual Property Law: The Demise of Territoriality?, 51 WM. & MARY L. REV. 711, 713-800 (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol51/iss2/1218.Grosse Ruse-Khan and Thomas Jaeger, Policing Patents Worldwide? – EC Border Measures Against Transiting Generic Drugs Under EC and WTO Intellectual Property Regimes, IIC 40,5, 502-538 (2009)19.Joel R. Paul, Comity in International Law, 32 HARV. INT’L L.J.1 , 1-77 (1991)20.John Patrick Kelsh, Subafilms, Ltd. v. Mgm-Pathe Communications Co., the Berne Convention, and the Extraterritorial Application of the Copyright Act, 90 NW. U. L. REV. 1839 (1996)21.James H.A. Pooley, Mark A. Lemley & Peter Toren, Understanding the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, 5 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 177-229 (1997)22.J. Thomas Coffin, The Extraterritorial Application of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, 23 HASTINGS INT’L &REV., 527-555 (2000)23.Jeffrey H. Smith, Call Me, Maybe? The Seventh Circuit`s Call in Motorola Mobility, 90 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 2063-2095 (2015)24.Jeffrey A. Pade and Thomas A. Counts, Trade Secrets Litigation Concerning Foreign Acts, DEFENSE COUNSEL JOURNAL, 1-17, January 201825.Jada M. Colon, The Court Must Play its Interpretative Role: Defending The Defend Trade Secrets Act’s Extraterritorial Reach, 3 U. CIN. INTELL. PROP. & COMPUTER L.J. 1-19 (2018)26.John D. Hawkins, The Defend Trade Secrets Act and Foreign Theft: The Application of the Act to Extraterritorial Misappropriation, 26 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 289-302 (2020)27.Katzenbach, Conflicts on an Unruly Horse, 65 YALE L.J. 1087-1956 (1956)28.Kenneth J. Arrow, Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in THE RATE AND DIRECTION OF INVENTIVE ACTIVITY (Richard R. Nelson ed., 1962), 609-626. Available at: https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c2144/c2144.pdf29.Katherine Linton, The Importance of Trade Secrets: New Directions in International Trade Policy Making and Empirical Research, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE AND ECONOMICS, 1-17, published electronically September 2016. Available at: http://www.usitc.gov/journals30.Lynn C. Tyler, Trade Secrets in Indiana: Property vs. Relationship, 31 IND.L. REV. 339-351 (1998)31.Mark A. Lemley, The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights, STANFORD LAW REVIEW, Vol. 61, 311(June 1, 2008), STANFORD LAW AND ECONOMICS OLIN WORKING PAPER No. 358, 312-353. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=115516732.Matthew N. Bathon, IP Enforcement: Domestic and Foreign Litigants in the ITC and U.S. District Courts, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA EAST ASIA LAW REVIEW, vol.10, 1-12 (2014)33.Maggie Gardner, RJR Nabisco and the Runaway Canon, 102 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW, 134-150 (2016)34.Melanie Reid, A Comparative Approach to Economic Espionage: Is Any Nation Effectively Dealing with this Global Threat?, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI LAW REVIEW, Vol. 70, No. 1, 2016, 757-829 (March 16, 2016) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=4468&context=umlr35.Note, American Adjudication of Transnational Securities Fraud, 89 HARV.L.REV 553 (1976)36.Najeeb Samie, The Doctrine of Effects and the Extraterritorial Application of Antitrust Laws, 14 U. MIAMI INTER-AM. L. REV. 23-59 (1982)37.Russell J Weintraub, The Extraterritorial Application of Antitrust and Securities Laws: An Inquiry into the Utility of a “Choice-of-Law” Approach, 70 TEX. L. REV. 1799-1850 (1992)38.Robin J. Effron, Secrets and Spies: Extraterritorial Application of the Economic Espionage Act and the TRIPS Agreement, 78 N.Y.U. L. REV., 1475-1517 (2003)39.Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss and Orly Lobel, Economic Espionage as Reality or Rhetoric: Equating Trade Secrecy with National Security (January 19, 2016). LEWIS & CLARK LAW REVIEW, San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 16-207, 419-474 (2016)40.Rochelle Dreyfuss & Linda Silberman, Misappropriation on a Global Scale: Extraterritoriality and Applicable Law in Transborder Trade Secrecy Cases, 8 CYBARIS INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 265, 266-326 (2017)41.Susan W. Brenner and Anthony C. Crescenzi, State-Sponsored Crime: The Futility of the Economic Espionage Act, 28 HOUS. J. INT’L L. 389-464 (2006)42.Steven E. Feldman & Sherry L. Rollo, Extraterritorial Protection of Trade Secret Rights in China: Do Section 337 Actions at the ITC Really Prevent Trade Secret Theft Abroad?, 11 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L 523-547 (2012)43.Samuel J. LaRoque, Reverse Engineering and Trade Secrets in the Post-Alice World, KANSAS LAW REVIEW, Kansas Law Review Inc. 2017: vol. 66(2), 427-457.44.Timothy Richard. Holbrook, Extraterritoriality in U.S. Patent Law, 49 WM. & MARY L. REV. 2119-2192 (2008)45.Timothy Richard. Holbrook, Extraterritoriality and Proximate Cause After WesternGeco (October 2, 2018), YALE JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY, vol. 21, 192-226 (2019), Emory Legal Studies Research Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=325966746.Timothy Richard. Holbrook, Is There a New Extraterritoriality in Intellectual Property? COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF LAW & THE ARTS 44(4), 458-509 (2021). Available at: https://doi.org/10.52214/jla.v44i4.8193 or SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=375762747.Thomas Reilly, Economic Espionage Charges Under Title 18 U.S.C. 1831: Getting Charges Approved and the “Foreign Instrumentality” Element, 57 U.S. ATT’YS BULL. 24 (2009)48.Thomas F. Cotter, Extraterritorial Damages in Copyright Law, 73 FLORIDA LAW REVIEW, 1-54 (April 6, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=382523849.Wendy J. Gordon, Intellectual Property. Chapter 28 of THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF LEGAL STUDIES, Oxford University Press, edited by Peter Can and Mark Tushnet, 617-646 (October 2003). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=41300150.William S. Dodge, Morrison`s Effects Test., 40 SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW (2011), 687-696. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=185163851.William S. Dodge, The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality in Two Steps, 110 AM. J. INT’L L. UBOUND, 45-50 (2016)52.William S. Dodge, The New Presumption Against Extraterritoriality, 133 HARVARD LAW REVIEW (June 29, 2019), 1582-1654. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=342933653.Xuan-Thao Nguyen, For Canadian Love of Trader Joe’s First Sale Doctrine, Reputational Harm, and Lanham Act’s Extraterritoriality, B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. vol. 25:2, 572-596 (Oct. 2019)（三）研究報告1.AIPLA (American Intellectual Property Law Association), 2019 Report of the Economic Survey, AIPLA, September 20192.Committee on the Judiciary, DEFEND TRADE SECRET ACT OF 2016, H.REPT.114-529, 16. (2016). Available at: https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt529/CRPT-114hrpt529.pdf3.Department of Justice, Prosecuting Intellectual Property Crimes Manual (Fourth Edition, 2013)4.Douglas C. Lippoldt, Mark F. Schultz, Uncovering Trade Secrets - An Empirical Assessment of Economic Implications of Protection for Undisclosed Data, OECD TRADE POLICY PAPERS, No. 167 (2014) Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5jxzl5w3j3s6-en.pdf?expires=1649219112&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=AEE70D30DCC89A87F1B3349E74F591785.Economics and Statistics Administration and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus, U.S. Department of Commerce (March 2012). Available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/news/publications/IP_Report_March_2012.pdf6.European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property, Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property: The CLIP Principles and Commentary (CLIP), OXFORD (2013)7.ITC, Recent Trends in U.S. Services Trade: 2021 Annual Report, April 2021, 33-4. Available at: https://www.usitc.gov/publications/industry_econ_analysis_332/2021/recent_trends_us_services_trade_2021_annual_report.htm8.Jenner& Block, Trade Secret Update: Key Developments and Issues to Watch in Trade Secret Law, JENNER& BLOCK, Spring 2021, 13. Available at: https://jenner.com/library/publications/208349.Mcafee Center for Strategic and International Studies, Net Losses: Estimating the Global Cost of Cybercrime, MCAFEE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (June, 2014). Available at: https://www.combattingcybercrime.org/files/virtual-library/phenomena-challenges-cybercrime/net-losses%E2%80%93estimating-the-global-cost-of-cybercrime-%28economic-impact-of-cybercrime-ii%29.pdf10.Nygh & Pocar, Report of the Special Commission, HCCH Prel.-Doc. No. 11 of August 2000 (1999). Available at: https://assets.hcch.net/upload/wop/jdgmpd11.pdf11.National Science Foundation (NSF) and U.S. Census Bureau, Business R&D and Innovation Survey (BRDIS):2015, NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING STATISTICS (NCSES), 2015. Available at: https://www.nsf.gov/ncses/nsf18313/12.Office of The National Counterintelligence Executive, Foreign Spies Stealing U.S. Economic Secrets in Cyberspace: Report to Congress on Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage 2009-2011 (October 2011)13.The Sedona Conference, Framework for Analysis on Trade Secret Issues Across International Borders: Extraterritorial Reach, A Project of The Sedona Conference Working Group on Trade Secrets (WG12), March 2021 Public Comment Version14.WIPO, Composite Study on Protection of Traditional Knowledge, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/8，第61點，THE WIPO REPORT ON FACT-FINDING MISSIONS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE (1998-1999)（四）判決1.Am. Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 (1909)2.Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987)3.AT & T Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 414 F.3d 1366 (2005)4.Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp, 546 U.S. 500 (2006)5.Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Ficeto, 677 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2012)6.Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462(1985)7.Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009)8.Brake Parts Inc. v. Lewis, No. 5:09-cv-00132, 2010 WL 3470198 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 31, 2010)9.Corning Glass Works v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com`n, 799 F.2d 1559 (1986)10.Clement Comm’cns v. Am. Future Sys., No. 2:89- cv-06280, 1990 WL 106762 (E.D. Pa. July 19, 1990)11.Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries AB, 11 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir. 1993)12.Cedeno v. Intech Grp., Inc., 733 F. Supp. 2d 471, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)13.Cedeno v. Castillo, 457 F. App’x 35 (2d Cir. 2012)14.Dongelewicz v. First E. Bank, 80 F. Supp. 2d 339 (M.D. Pa.1999)15.Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002)16.Datacarrier S.A. v. WOCCU Servs. Grp, Inc., 221 F. Supp. 1078, 1081 (W.D. Wis. 2016)17.E.I. du Pont & Co. v. Masland, 244 U.S. 100 (1917)18.E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co. v. Christopher, 431 F.2d 1012 (5th Cir. 1970)19.E.E.O.C. v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (1991)20.European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 2011 WL 84395721.Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Indus. Corp., No. , 1996 WL 724734, *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 1996)22.Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947)23.Gray Co. v. Firstenberg Machinery Co., Inc., 913 F.2d 758 (9th Cir. 1990)24.Geophysical Serv. Inc. v. TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co., 850 F.3d 785, 799 (5th Cir. 2017)25.Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958)26.H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989)27.Harris Rutsky Co. v. Bell Clements, 328 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003)28.International Shoe Co v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)29.Iverson v. Grant, 946 F. Supp. 1404, 1411 (D.S.D. 1996)30.In re Le-Nature’s, Inc.v. Krones, Inc., et al., 2011 WL 2112533, *2 n.3 (W.D. Pa. May 26, 2011)31.Jennings v. Auto Meter Prods. Inc., 495 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 2007)32.J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011)33.Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp, 416 U.S. 470 (1974)34.Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013)35.Leasco Data Processing Equip. Corp. v. Maxwell, 468 F.2d 1326 (2d Cir.1972)36.Los Angeles News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int’l, Ltd., 340 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2003)37.Litecubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc., 523 F.3d 1353 (2008)38.Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BIScience Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00483-JRG, 2019 WL 2084426 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2019)39.Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2001)40.Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007)41.Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2007)42.Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010)43.Minn-Chem, Inc v. Agrium, Inc., 683 F.3d 845, 857 (7th Cir. 2012)44.Micron Tech., Inc. v. United Microelectronics Corp., No. 17-CV-06932-MMC, 2019 WL 1959487 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2019)45.MACOM Tech. Solutions Inc. v. Litrinium, Inc., No. SACV 19-220 JVS (JDEx), 2019 WL 4282906 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2019)46.Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd., 436 F.Supp.3d 1150 (2020)47.Peabody v. Norfolk, 98 MASS. 452 (1868)48.Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1994)49.Reebok Intern., Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc., 970 F.2d 552 (1992)50.Rundquist v. Vapiano SE, 798 F. Supp. 2d 102, 123 (D.D.C. 2011)51.Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015)52.RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016)53.Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 106 F.2d 45 (1939)54.Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952)55.Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)56.Sedima,S.P.R.L. v.Imrex Co.,473 U.S. 479,496 n.14 (1985)57.Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM–Pathe Communications Co., 24 F.3d 1088 (1994)58.Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co., v. International Trade Commission, 623 F. App’x 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2015)59.Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co., v. International Trade Commission, No. 16-428, 2017 WL 69209 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2017)60.Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass`n, 549 F.2d 597 (9th Cir.1976)61.Thermodyn Corp. v. 3M Co., 593 F. Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Ohio 2008)62.TianRui Group Co. v. ITC, 661 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011)63.Trader Joe`s Company v. Hallatt, 835 F.3d 960 (2016)64.U.S. v. United Microelectronics Corporation, et al., 3:18-CR-00465 MMC, Unsealed Indictment65.U.S. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No.3:12-CR-137, D.I. 3, Unsealed Indictment66.U.S. v. LSL Biotechnologies, 379 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2004)67.United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 44 F. Supp. 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)68.United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945)69.United States v. Chao Fan Xu, 706 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2013)70.vPersonalize Inc. v. Magnetize Consultants Ltd., 437 F.Supp.3d 860 (2020)71.Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 556 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1977)72.World Wild Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)73.W.D. Court of New York, GB Marketing v. Gerolsteiner, 782 F.Supp. 763 (1991)74.WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., 953 F.Supp.2d 731 (2013)75.WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., 791 F.3d 1340 (2015)76.WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., 837 F.3d 1358 (2016)77.WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 138 S.Ct. 2129 (2018)78.Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L`Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006)（五）國際貿易委員會（ITC）之決定報告1.Certain Processes for the Manufacture of Skinless Sausage Casings and Resulting Product, Inv. No. 337-TA-148/169 (July 31, 1984)2.Certain Rubber Resins and Processes For Manufacturing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-849 (August 2018)3.Certain Botulinum Toxin Products, Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same, Inv. No 337-TA-1145 (December 16, 2020)4.Certain Botulinum Toxin Products, Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same, Inv. No 337-TA-1145 (December 16, 2020), Comments of the American Antitrust Institute on the Public-Interest Issues（六）網路資料1.A New F.B.I. Focus: H.R. Comm. on Appropriations, Subcomm. for the Dep’t of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, 107th Cong. (2002) [hereinafter Mueller Testimony] (testimony of Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI). Available at: https://www2.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/mueller062102.htm2.Andrew S. Boutros and Alex Meier, An Endangered Claim Reemerges: The Defend Trade Secrets Act Breathes New Life Into Trade-Secrets-Based RICO Claims, White Collar Crime Report, 12 WCR 243 (2017). Available at: https://www.seyfarth.com/a/web/7094/3G9C1Q/boutrosmeierpublished.pdf3.Adam R. Hess and David P. Prueter, The ITC Expands its Approach to Issuing Cease and Desist Orders, NATIONAL LAW REVIEW, Volume X, Number 199, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, July 17, 2020. Available at: https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/corporate/publications/2017/05/the_itcs_evolving_approach_to_cease_and_desist_orders.pdf4.Bill Watson, In Botox Dispute, ITC Claims Power to Block Imports For Whatever Reason it Wants, ITC POLICY PROJECT, January 29, 2021. Available at: https://www.itcpolicy.com/blog/2021/1/29/in-botox-dispute-itc-claims-power-to-block-imports-for-whatever-reason-it-wants5.Bret Cohen, Michael Renaud & Nicholas Armington, Explaining the Defend Trade Secrets Act, BUSINESS LAW TODAY (Sept. 2016) Available at: https://businesslawtoday.org/2016/09/explaining-the-defend-trade-secrets-act/6.David Vance Lucas, International Harmonization of Trade Secret Rights and Remedies, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Dec 15, 2016. Available at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/international-harmonization-of-trade-67495/7.Ellen Nakashima, Obama Orders Voluntary Security Standards for Critical Industries’ Computer Networks, THE WASHINGTON POST (Feb. 12, 2013). Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-voluntary-security-standards-for-critical-industries-computer-networks/2013/02/12/e1d0a586-755e-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html8.“F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller designated espionage as the F.B.I.’s number two priority.” Investigative Programs Counterintelligence Division, The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Available at: https://www2.fbi.gov/hq/ci/economic.htm9.FBI National Press Office, FBI Announces Economic Espionage Awareness Campaign, FBI National Press Office (July 23, 2015). Available at: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-announces-economic-espionage-awareness-campaign10.Steve Whitehead, Corporate Counterintelligence—Protecting Business Information, COMPUTER BUS. REV. (June 1, 2013) Available at: Corporate counterintelligence – protecting business information - Computer Business Review Africa (cbr.co.za)11.Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Economic Espionage And Trade Secret Theft: Are Our Laws Adequate For Today’s Threats? Hearing Before Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, Subcomm. on Crime and Terrorism, 113th Cong. (May 13, 2014)12.U.S. Department of Justice, Taiwan Company Pleads Guilty to Trade Secret Theft in Criminal Case Involving PRC State-Owned Company, October 28, 2020. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/taiwan-company-pleads-guilty-trade-secret-theft-criminal-case-involving-prc-state-owned13.U.S. Department of Justice, Kolon Industries Inc. Pleads Guilty for Conspiring to Steal DuPont Trade Secrets Involving Kevlar Technology, April 30, 2015. Available at: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/richmond/news/press-releases/kolon-industries-inc.-pleads-guilty-for-conspiring-to-steal-dupont-trade-secrets-involving-kevlar-technology14.William S. Dodge, The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality Still Does Not Apply to Jurisdictional Statutes, OPINIO JURIS (July 1, 2016). Available at: http://opiniojuris.org/2016/07/01/32658/（七）其他1.移審請願書：On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Sino Legend Chemical Co., v. ITC) zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202201326 en_US
