1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

題名 論我國資通訊企業面臨美國專利蟑螂(Patent Troll)的困境與解方
Discussion on the Dilemma and Solutions of Taiwanese Information and Communication Technology Enterprises Facing the Patent Troll
作者 王嬿晴
Wang, Yan-Cing
貢獻者 鄭菀瓊
Cheng, Wan-Chiung
王嬿晴
Wang, Yan-Cing
關鍵詞 專利蟑螂
非實施專利實體
專利訴訟策略
專利權濫用
Patent troll
Non-Practicing Entity (NPE)
Patent litigation strategy
Patent abuse
日期 2022
上傳時間 5-Oct-2022 09:10:03 (UTC+8)
摘要 專利蟑螂（patent troll）本身不實施專利，亦不從事商品製造，而透過四處收購專利後，積極向目標企業發送授權信或警告函，達到索取權利金的目的，或是透過大舉興訟的方式，間接使目標企業在訴訟中妥協和解，這樣的角色在各項產業中屢見不鮮。本文從上述問題出發，透過文獻探討，分析專利蟑螂的性質與爭議，專利蟑螂之商業模式不但未能有效落實專利法鼓勵創新、促進科學進步的立法意旨，反而使營運企業為此疲於奔命，減低企業之創新研發量能，亦形成一種社會資源的浪費。專利蟑螂利用制度巧取利益之行為可能已構成權利濫用，本文進一步探究其所衍生的問題，同時帶出企業營運上所面臨的隱憂。
美國為專利蟑螂訴訟最為猖獗的國家，故本文將以此作為探討中心，探究我國資通訊企業面對專利蟑螂時所可能面臨之難題，透過案例分析與深度訪談窺探企業內部所遭遇之實質困境、企業現行的應對作法，並嘗試從既有判決中梳理法院見解，歸納出各項抗辯於案件適用之可行性，為我國資通訊企業擬訂出較佳之防禦策略。同時本文亦對現行美國司法訴訟制度進行評析，認為專利蟑螂於美國橫行部分歸因於專利審查品質寬鬆、些許法院對於專利權人特別友好、美國律師費及訴訟成本高昂等因素，無形中孕育出較有利於專利蟑螂的局面，若能針對制度上進行調整，將有助於遏止專利蟑螂有恃無恐地對營運企業發動攻擊。
Patent troll refers to a patentee that does not practice the patent by itself, and not engage in making products either. Instead, after acquiring patents through various channels, they actively send demend letters or warning letters to the target enterprise, in order to obtain the royalties. Patent troll typically make enterprises compromise to settle by launching a litigation. It occurs frequently in several industries. As noted above, this essay will start from literature research, analyze the controversy issue over patent troll. The business model of patent troll not only against the purpose of the patent system, but also cause lots of waste of social resources. In addition to the financial impacts, it can also harm the operation and innovation of the enterprise. Therefore, the way of patent troll obtaining benefits seems like an abuse of patent rights. This essay will further discuss the problems arising from patent troll, and the worries faced by the enterprises.
Compared to other countries, patent troll litigation happened more frequently in the United States. Thus, this essay will focus on discussing the dilemma Taiwanese ICT enterprises’s encounter when they face a U.S. patent troll lawsuit. Find out the strategies that adopt by the enterprises through the interview, and sort out the court`s opinions as well. At the same time, this essay will summarize the feasibility of different answers, try to give some advices for the Taiwanese ICT enterprises. The reason why patent troll problem is more serciously in United States, partly owing to the loose quality of patent examination, and some courts are particularly friendly to the patent holders. High legal fees and litigation costs also rise the settle desire of the enterprise. These situations are more favorable for patent troll. If some part of legal system can be adjusted moderately, it will lower patent troll’s temptation of launching attacks on operating enterprises arbitrarily.
參考文獻 一、中文文獻
（一）專書
1. 王承守、鄧穎懋（2004）。《美國專利訴訟攻防策略運用》。台北：元照。
2. 張宇樞（2009）。《美國專利訴訟實務》。台北：經濟部智慧財產局。
3. 陳歆（2012）。《美國專利訴訟關鍵案例解讀》。台北：元照。
（二）期刊論文
1. 王立達（2018）。〈標準必要專利權行使之國際規範發展與比較分析──FRAND承諾法律性質、禁制令、權利金與競爭法規制〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第275期，頁87-110。
2. 王怡婷（2014）。〈大學型非專利實施實體發展動向觀察－以威斯康辛大學麥迪遜分校校友研究基金會（WARF）實務運作為例〉，《科技法律透析》，第27卷第1期，頁15-21。
3. 何曜任（2011）。〈美國法專利權濫用理論對我國法之啟示〉，《智慧財產評論》，第9卷第2期，頁1-42。
4. 周瑋祺（2014）。〈美國國際貿易委員會涉及標準專利(SEPs)案件所核發限制禁止命令遭否決撤銷〉，《科技法律透析》，第26卷第1期，頁8-9。
5. 林鵬飛（2014）。〈防禦型專利集合之創新商業模式：RPX個案研究〉，《智慧財產月刊》，第189期，頁70-108。
6. 邱敬淵（2016）。〈專利蟑螂與市場競爭〉，《公平交易委員會電子報》，第53期，頁1-5。
7. 陳世傑（2013）。〈美國SHIELD法案圍堵專利蟑螂之思考〉，《科技法律透析》，第25卷第7期，頁2-3。
8. 陳在方（2017）。〈美國專利紛爭解決之關鍵性變革〉，《交大法學評論》，第2期，頁1-62。
9. 陳志清（2010）。〈企業與未實施專利實體之互動關係及因應策略（上）〉，《專利師》，第2期，頁43-51。
10. 陳國成（2016）。〈我國均等論實務之發展——由最高法院102年度台上字第1986號判決觀察〉，《科技法學評論》，第13卷第1期，頁70-114。
11. 馮浩庭（2008）。〈美國專利訴訟程序之研究——現況、困境與美國國會之修法回應〉，《智慧財產月刊》，第110期，頁71-97。
12. 楊宏暉（2016）。〈標準關鍵專利之濫用與限制競爭〉，《公平交易季刊》，第23卷第4期，頁35-86。
13. 楊智傑（2012）。〈美國智慧財產權訴訟中核發禁制令之審查〉，《智慧財產月刊》，第160期，頁51-100。
14. 蔡宗霖（2017）。〈律師費轉嫁機制於美國專利法第285條之運用——以ICON Health & Fitness v. Octane Fitness為例〉，《專利師》，第29期，頁30-60。
15. 羅育如（2015）。〈大學研發成果商業化評估方法初探〉，《科技法律透析》，第27卷第11期，頁13-20。
16. 蘇昱婷、劉尚志（2013）。〈美國智慧財產權訴訟中核發禁制令之審查〉，《智慧財產月刊》，第177期，頁56-104。
（三）網路資料
1. AST聯手Google及各大廠推出IP3專利團購計畫（2016），新聚能科技，載於：https://synergytek.com.tw/blog/2016/05/22/ast-patent-purchase-promotion/ （最後瀏覽日：2022年2月23日）。
2. Blue Spike以訊號粹取技術專利組合提起超過70起專利侵權告訴（2013），科技產業資訊室，載於：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=7765 （最後瀏覽日：2022年2月23日）。
3. Hon. Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Stephen G. Kuni，李淑蓮編譯（2013），新的領證後複審程序間接提升美國專利品質，北美智權報，載於：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Laws/US-74.htm （最後瀏覽日：2022年2月23日）。
4. 王怡婷（2016），何謂不實施專利實體（Non-practicing entitiy，NPE）？，資訊工業策進會科技法律研究所，載於：https://stli.iii.org.tw/article-detail.aspx?no=67&tp=5&d=7300 （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
5. 王怡婷（2016），何謂防禦性聯盟（Defensive Patent Aggregator）？其是否為NPE的重要類型？，科技法律研究所，載於：https://stli.iii.org.tw/article-detail.aspx?no=67&tp=5&d=7320 （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
6. 吳碧娥（2014），台灣企業與NPE合作 可行嗎？北美智權報，載於：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/publish-307.htm （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
7. 我國光電產業廠商在美國專利訴訟案件分析，智慧財產局，載於：https://tiponet.tipo.gov.tw/downloads/module030/industry_3_5.pdf （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
8. 李森堙（2017），談美國專利訴訟地域集中現象，科技政策觀點，載於：https://portal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/article/10322 （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
9. 李森堙（2018），談TC Heartland案判決後美國專利訴訟管轄相關議題之釐清，Research Portal科技政策觀，載於：https://portal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/article/10408 （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
10. 從STC.UNM看如何提高技轉中心專利運營績效（2019），新聚能科技，載於：https://synergytek.com.tw/blog/2019/05/07/stc-unm-vs-tp-link-patent-monetization/ （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
11. 陳宜誠（2014），發明專利進步性判準的演進，北美智權報，載於：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Expert_Column/PE-108.htm （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
12. 舒安居（2014），專利蟑螂的緣起與滅絕：淺談如何跟蟑螂打交道，科技產業資訊室，載於：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/post/Read.aspx?PostID=10029（最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
13. 馮震宇（2014），專利訴訟費用負擔大逆轉 對抗NPE新利器浮現？，科技產業資訊室，載於：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=9660 （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
14. 新墨西哥大學技轉公司啟動專利戰 武器間接來自台灣研究機構（2020），科技產業資訊室，載於：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=16492（最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
15. 葉雲卿（2012），專利訴訟的管理基礎系列 I ─ 淺談ITC專利訴訟，北美智權報，載於：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Expert_Column/Expert-5.htm （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
16. 蔣士棋（2021），台灣科技業如何利用NPE強化技術競爭力？，北美智權報，載於：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/IPNC_210714_0702.htm （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
17. 鴻海子公司鴻穎創新轉移專利給NPE，展開5G標準相關專利訴訟（2021），科技產業資訊室，載於：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=18340 （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
 
二、外文文獻
（一）專書
1. E. Allan Farnsworth, An introduction to the Legal System of the United States (third ed. 1999).
2. Lester L. Hewitt, Patent infringement litigation: A Step-by-Step Guide from Dispute through Trial for Executives, Witnesses, and In-House Counsel (2005).
（二）期刊論文
1. Allen W. Wang, Rise of the Patent Intermediaries, 25 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURANL 159 (2010).
2. Allison, John R Lemley, Mark A, Schwartz, David L, How often do non-practicing entities win patent suits?, 32 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURANL 237 (2017).
3. Anna Mayergoyz, Lessons from Europe on How to Tame U.S. Patent Trolls, 42 CORNELL INTERRNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 241, 266 (2009).
4. Aria Soroudi, Defeating Trolls: The Impact of Octane and Highmark on Patent Trolls, 35 LOYOLA LOS ANGELES ENTERTAINMENT LAW REVIEW 319 (2014).
5. Ashley Chuang, Fixing the Failures of Software Patent Protection: Deterring Patent Trolling by Applying Industry-Specific Patentability Standards, 16 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INTERDISCIPLINARY LAW JOURANL 215 (2006).
6. Axel Haus & Steffen Juranek, Non-practicing entities: Enforcement specialists, 53 INTERRNATIONAL REVIEW OF LAW AND ECONOMICS 38 (2018).
7. Chien, Colleen, Startups and patent trolls, 17 STANFORD TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW, Paper No. 9-12, (2013) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2146251 (last visited: May 22, 2022).
8. Christian Helmers, Brian Love & Luke McDonagh, Is There a Patent Troll Problem in the U.K., 24 FORDHAM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL 509 (2014).
9. Cohen, Lauren Gurun, Umit G Kominers & Scott Duke, Patent trolls: Evidence from targeted firms, 65 MANAGEMENT SCIENCE 5461 (2019).
10. Cohen, Lauren, Gurun, Umit G & Kominers, Scott Duke, Empirical evidence on the behavior and impact of patent trolls: A survey, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2708224
11. Colleen V. Chien, Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High-Tech Patents, 87 NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW 1571 (2009).
12. Daniel F. Spulber, How Patents Provide the Foundation of the Market for Inventions, 11 JOURANL OF COMPETITION LAW AND ECONOMICS 271 (2015)
13. Daniel Roth, Patent Litigation Attorneys’ Fees: Shifting from Status to Conduct, 13 CHICAGO-KENT JOURNAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 257 (2013)
14. David L. Schwartz & Jay P. Kesan, Analyzing the Role of Non-Practicing Entities in the Patent System, 99 CORNELL LAW REVIEW 425 (2014).
15. David Rosenberg & Steven Shavell, A Model in Which Suits Are Brought for Their Nuisance Value, 5 INTERRNATIONAL REVIEW OF LAW AND ECONOMICS 3 (1985).
16. Edward Lee, Patent Trolls: Moral Panics, Motions in Limine, and Patent Reform, 19 STANFORD TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW113 (2015).
17. Eric J. Riedel, Patent Infringement Demand Letters: Does Noerr-Pennington or the First Amendment Preempt State-Law Liability for Misleading Statements, 31 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURANL 623 (2016).
18. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes, 99 CORNELL LAW REVIEW 387 (2014).
19. James Bessen, Jennifer Ford & Michael J. Meurer, The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls, 34 REGULATION 26 (2011).
20. James F McDonough, III, The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy, 56 EMORY LAW JOURANL 189 (2006).
21. Jay P. Kesan & Carol M. Hayes, FRAND`s forever: standards, patent transfers, and licensing commitments, 89 INDIANA LAW JOURANL 231 (2014).
22. Joseph Scott Miller, Standard Setting, Patents, and a Access Lock-In: RAND Licensing and the Theory of the Firm, 40 INDIANA LAW REVIEW 351 (2007).
23. Mark A. Lemley, Are Universities Patent Trolls, 18 FORDHAM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL 611 (2008).
24. Matthew Sag, IP Litigation in U.S. District Courts: 1994-2014, 101 IOWA LAW REVIEW 1065 (2016).
25. Michael J. Mazzeo, Jonathan H. Ashtor & Samantha Zyontz, Do NPEs Matter; Non-Practicing Entities and Patent Litigation Outcomes, 9 JOURANL OF COMPETITION LAW AND ECONOMICS 879 (2013).
26. Michael Risch, Patent Troll Myths, 42 SETON HALL LAW REVIEW 457 (2012).
27. Robert P. Merges, The Trouble with Trolls: Innovation, Rent-Seeking, and Patent Law Reform, 24 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURANL 1583 (2009).
28. Robin Feldman & Mark A. Lemley, Do Patent Licensing Demands Mean Innovation, 101 IOWA LAW REVIEW 137 (2015).
29. Sannu K. Shrestha, Trolls or Market-Makers - An Empirical Analysis of Nonpracticing Entities, 110 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 114 (2010).
30. Shawn P. Miller, Who`s Suing Us: Decoding Patent Plaintiffs since 2000 with the Stanford NPE Litigation Dataset, 21 STANFORD TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW 235 (2018).
31. Yan Leychkis, Of Fire Ants and Claim Construction: An Empirical of the Meteoric Rise of the Eastern District of Texas as a Preeminent Forum for Patent Litigation, 9 YALE JOURNAL OF LAW AND TECHNOLOGY 193 (2006-2007).
（三）政府官方文件
1. Ftc.gov, Patent Assertion Entity Activity: An FTC study, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/patent-assertion-entity-activity-ftc-study/p131203_patent_assertion_entity_activity_an_ftc_study_0.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
2. Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL33225.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
3. supremecourt.gov, 2021 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2021year-endreport.pdf#page=5 (last visited: May 22, 2022).
4. Usitc.gov, United States International Trade Commission Annual Performance Plan, FY 2020-21 and Annual Performance Report, FY2019, https://www.usitc.gov/documents/usitc_fy2020-2021_app-fy2019_apr-feb2020.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
（四）國會法案/政策草案
1. Draft Policy Statement On Licensing Negotiations And Remedies For Standards-Essential Patents Subject To Voluntary F/RAND Commitments, https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1453826/download (last visited: May 22, 2022).
2. H.R.6245 - Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act of 2012, 112th Congress (2011-2012), https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/6245?s=1&r=58 (last visited: May 22, 2022).
3. H.R.9 - Innovation Act 114th Congress (2015-2016) https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/9 (last visited: May 22, 2022).
（五）網路資料
1. ahdictionary.com, troll, https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=troll (last visited: May 22, 2022).
2. Eli Whitney Museum, http://eliwhitney.org/museum/about-eli-whitney/inventor#two (last visited: May 22, 2022).
3. forbes.com, Obama admin’s decision to overturn Apple’s ITC import ban was the right one. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/05/obama-admins-decision-to-overturn-apples-itc-import-ban-was-the-right-one/?sh=59461f71c973 (last visited: Feb. 22, 2022).
4. insight.rpxcorp, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-167729-semcon-ip-v-mediatek#patent_information (last visited: May 22, 2022).
5. Insight.rpxcorp. https://insight.rpxcorp.com/entity/1034849-3g-licensing-s-a#patents (last visited: Feb. 22, 2022).
6. Insight.rpxcorp. https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_campaign/73814-american-patents-llc-6-004-049#campaign_overview_section (last visited: Feb. 22, 2022).
7. Intellectual Ventures, https://www.intellectualventures.com/who-we-are/leadership/nathan-myhrvold (last visited: May 22, 2022).
8. Justice.gov, Public comments – Draft policy statement on licensing negotiations and remedies for standards-essential patents, https://www.justice.gov/atr/guidelines-and-policy-statements-0/public-comments-draft-policy-statement-licensing-negotiations-and-remedies-standards-essential (last visited: May 22, 2022).
9. Law360.com, What To Know About RPX`s Deal With Intellectual Ventures, https://www.law360.com/articles/1343848/what-to-know-about-rpx-s-deal-with-intellectual-ventures (last visited: May 22, 2022).
10. Mondaq.com, United States: Biden Administration Releases Draft Of SEP Policy Revamp, https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/1148644/biden-administration-releases-draft-of-sep-policy-revamp (last visited: May 22, 2022).
11. Oliver, E., Richardson, K., & Costa, M. How Intellectual Ventures Is Streamlining Its Portfolio, iam-media.com, https://www.iam-media.com/litigation/how-intellectual-ventures-streamlining-its-portfolio (last visited: May 22, 2022).
12. portal.unifiedpatents.com, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/analytics/ptab-and-litigation?publication_status=Active&publication_type=G (last visited: Feb. 22, 2022).
13. Pwc.com, 2017 Patent Litigation Study, https://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2017-patent-litigation-study.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
14. Pwc.com, 2018 Patent Litigation Study, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2018-pwc-patent-litigation-study.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
15. Randall R. Rader, Colleen V. Chien & David Hricik, Make Patent Trolls Pay in Court, https://socalip.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/make-patent-trolls-pay-in-court-nytimes.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
16. Resis, R., History of the patent troll and lessons learned., https://bannerwitcoff.com/_docs/library/articles/HistoryOfPatentTroll.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
17. Richard Lloyd, IV pulls back from patent acquisitions to focus on monetising existing portfolio through sale and licence, https://www.iam-media.com/litigation/iv-pulls-back-patent-acquisitions-focus-monetising-existing-portfolio-through-sale-and-licence (last visited: May 22, 2022).
18. Rpxcorp.com, 2017 in Review: A Year of Transition, https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/2017-in-review-a-year-of-transition/ (last visited: May 22, 2022).
19. Rpxcorp.com, 2018 Patent Litigation and Marketplace Overview, https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/2018-patent-litigation-and-marketplace-overview/ (last visited: May 22, 2022).
20. Rpxcorp.com, https://www.rpxcorp.com/platform/rpx-network/ (last visited: May 22, 2022).
21. Rpxcorp.com, NPE Litigation: Costs by Key Events, https://www.rpxcorp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/05/Final-NPE-Litigation-Costs-by-Key-Events1.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
22. Rpxcorp.com, Q1 in Review: Courts Tackle SEP Issues as Patent Deals and Third-Party Funding Bolster NPE Activity, https://www.rpxcorp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2022/04/RPX-Q1-in-Review-April-2022.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
23. Rpxcorp.com, Q4 in Review: NPEs Cap Off a Busy 2021 as SEP Policies Evolve in the US and UK, https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/q4-in-review-npes-cap-off-a-busy-2021-as-sep-policies-evolve-in-the-us-and-uk/(last visited: May 22, 2022).
24. Transpacificip.com, http://www.transpacificip.com/our-company/our-story (last visited: May 22, 2022).
25. Unifiedpatents.com, Who do Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) Target? https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2019/11/13/da67lqresu99qshdibvrvv7vu4plk8?utm_source=Unified+Patents+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a216f37e21-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_10_02_08_16_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5140119467-a216f37e21-124538539 (last visited: May 22, 2022).
26. usitc.gov, About Section 337 https://www.usitc.gov/intellectual_property/about_section_337.htm (last visited: May 22, 2022)
27. wikipedia.org, troll, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll (last visited: May 22, 2022).
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
108364209
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108364209
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 鄭菀瓊zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Cheng, Wan-Chiungen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 王嬿晴zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Wang, Yan-Cingen_US
dc.creator (作者) 王嬿晴zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Wang, Yan-Cingen_US
dc.date (日期) 2022en_US
dc.date.accessioned 5-Oct-2022 09:10:03 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 5-Oct-2022 09:10:03 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 5-Oct-2022 09:10:03 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0108364209en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/142105-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 科技管理與智慧財產研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 108364209zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 專利蟑螂（patent troll）本身不實施專利，亦不從事商品製造，而透過四處收購專利後，積極向目標企業發送授權信或警告函，達到索取權利金的目的，或是透過大舉興訟的方式，間接使目標企業在訴訟中妥協和解，這樣的角色在各項產業中屢見不鮮。本文從上述問題出發，透過文獻探討，分析專利蟑螂的性質與爭議，專利蟑螂之商業模式不但未能有效落實專利法鼓勵創新、促進科學進步的立法意旨，反而使營運企業為此疲於奔命，減低企業之創新研發量能，亦形成一種社會資源的浪費。專利蟑螂利用制度巧取利益之行為可能已構成權利濫用，本文進一步探究其所衍生的問題，同時帶出企業營運上所面臨的隱憂。
美國為專利蟑螂訴訟最為猖獗的國家，故本文將以此作為探討中心，探究我國資通訊企業面對專利蟑螂時所可能面臨之難題，透過案例分析與深度訪談窺探企業內部所遭遇之實質困境、企業現行的應對作法，並嘗試從既有判決中梳理法院見解，歸納出各項抗辯於案件適用之可行性，為我國資通訊企業擬訂出較佳之防禦策略。同時本文亦對現行美國司法訴訟制度進行評析，認為專利蟑螂於美國橫行部分歸因於專利審查品質寬鬆、些許法院對於專利權人特別友好、美國律師費及訴訟成本高昂等因素，無形中孕育出較有利於專利蟑螂的局面，若能針對制度上進行調整，將有助於遏止專利蟑螂有恃無恐地對營運企業發動攻擊。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Patent troll refers to a patentee that does not practice the patent by itself, and not engage in making products either. Instead, after acquiring patents through various channels, they actively send demend letters or warning letters to the target enterprise, in order to obtain the royalties. Patent troll typically make enterprises compromise to settle by launching a litigation. It occurs frequently in several industries. As noted above, this essay will start from literature research, analyze the controversy issue over patent troll. The business model of patent troll not only against the purpose of the patent system, but also cause lots of waste of social resources. In addition to the financial impacts, it can also harm the operation and innovation of the enterprise. Therefore, the way of patent troll obtaining benefits seems like an abuse of patent rights. This essay will further discuss the problems arising from patent troll, and the worries faced by the enterprises.
Compared to other countries, patent troll litigation happened more frequently in the United States. Thus, this essay will focus on discussing the dilemma Taiwanese ICT enterprises’s encounter when they face a U.S. patent troll lawsuit. Find out the strategies that adopt by the enterprises through the interview, and sort out the court`s opinions as well. At the same time, this essay will summarize the feasibility of different answers, try to give some advices for the Taiwanese ICT enterprises. The reason why patent troll problem is more serciously in United States, partly owing to the loose quality of patent examination, and some courts are particularly friendly to the patent holders. High legal fees and litigation costs also rise the settle desire of the enterprise. These situations are more favorable for patent troll. If some part of legal system can be adjusted moderately, it will lower patent troll’s temptation of launching attacks on operating enterprises arbitrarily.		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 3
第三節 研究範圍及限制 4
第四節 研究架構 5
第二章 文獻回顧 7
第一節 易與專利蟑螂混淆之名詞：非實施專利實體（NPE） 7
第一項 NPE之定義 7
第二項 NPE之類型與特色 10
第一款 研究型 10
第二款 攻擊型 11
第三款 防禦型 13
第四款 顧問管理服務型 14
第三項 近年NPE訴訟發展趨勢 15
第一款 NPE訴訟數量與產業變化 16
第二款 NPE訴訟地點的轉移 18
第二節 專利蟑螂之定義與性質 20
第一項 專利蟑螂簡介 20
第二項 專利蟑螂之興起與發展 20
第三項 專利蟑螂之商業模式 23
第四項 專利蟑螂性質爭議 23
第一款 專利蟑螂的行為屬於正當權利行使 24
第二款 專利蟑螂的行為構成專利權濫用 25
第三款 專利蟑螂定義 27
第四款 專利蟑螂所引發之問題 27
第三節 小結 30
第三章 我國資通訊企業所面臨的訴訟困境 32
第一節 資通訊產業特性 32
第一項 資本密集產業 33
第二項 具有大量產業標準 33
第三項 技術重疊性高導致專利叢林現象 34
第二節 企業於專利蟑螂訴訟過程中面臨的困境 34
第一項 企業應訴成本高昂 35
第一款 對於警告信函的回應 35
第二款 訴訟需支出鉅額律師費 37
第三款 合理權利金的談判困境 39
第二項 禁制令核發導致產品無法於美國境內銷售 40
第三項 損害賠償金額的負擔 43
第四項 涉訴專利為供應商之產品技術 43
第三節 小結 44
第四章 企業面臨專利蟑螂訴訟可採行之策略 45
第一節 訴訟前準備 45
第一項 於收受警告函時的應對方法 45
第二項 尋求外部資源協助 47
第二節 訴訟進行中之策略採用 47
第一項 管轄抗辯 47
第二項 主張原告送達瑕疵 50
第三項 挑戰對方的證據效力 52
第四項 主張專利無效或利用專利複審程序推翻原告專利有效性 53
第五項 專利未侵權抗辯 56
第六項 標準必要專利以FRAND原則談判授權金 57
第一款 Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc. 58
第二款 Apple Inc., v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 59
第三款 In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC Patent Litigation 60
第四款 Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp 61
第七項 續行訴訟或進行和解的判斷依據 62
第三節 如何改善現況與預防 64
第一項 加入防禦性聯盟的考量 64
第二項 建立企業內部健全之專利策略 67
第四節 小結 69
第五章 美國現有制度評析 70
第一節 美國國會提出之法案改革 70
第一項 2012年SHIELD法案 70
第二項 2015年創新法案 71
第三項 2021年標準必要專利政策草案 71
第二節 美國現行專利制度之相關爭議探討 72
第一項 專利審查標準寬鬆 72
第二項 訴訟費用轉嫁制度 74
第一款 Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. 75
第二款 Lumen View Technology LLC v. FindTheBest.com, Inc. 77
第三款 Site Update Solutions, LLC v. CBS Corp. 78
第四款 Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Netflix, Inc 80
第三項 部分法院對專利權人友好使訴訟地域集中 81
第四項 禁制令核發標準 85
第一款 聯邦法院之禁制令核發 85
第二款 337程序之排除命令與禁止令 87
第三節 小結 90
第六章 結論與建議 90
第一節 研究發現與結論 91
第二節 對於企業的策略建議 92
參考文獻 94
附錄 107
附錄一 訪談大綱 107
附錄二 訪談紀錄 108		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 3582918 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108364209en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 專利蟑螂zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 非實施專利實體zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 專利訴訟策略zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 專利權濫用zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Patent trollen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Non-Practicing Entity (NPE)en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Patent litigation strategyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Patent abuseen_US
dc.title (題名) 論我國資通訊企業面臨美國專利蟑螂(Patent Troll)的困境與解方zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Discussion on the Dilemma and Solutions of Taiwanese Information and Communication Technology Enterprises Facing the Patent Trollen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文文獻
（一）專書
1. 王承守、鄧穎懋（2004）。《美國專利訴訟攻防策略運用》。台北：元照。
2. 張宇樞（2009）。《美國專利訴訟實務》。台北：經濟部智慧財產局。
3. 陳歆（2012）。《美國專利訴訟關鍵案例解讀》。台北：元照。
（二）期刊論文
1. 王立達（2018）。〈標準必要專利權行使之國際規範發展與比較分析──FRAND承諾法律性質、禁制令、權利金與競爭法規制〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第275期，頁87-110。
2. 王怡婷（2014）。〈大學型非專利實施實體發展動向觀察－以威斯康辛大學麥迪遜分校校友研究基金會（WARF）實務運作為例〉，《科技法律透析》，第27卷第1期，頁15-21。
3. 何曜任（2011）。〈美國法專利權濫用理論對我國法之啟示〉，《智慧財產評論》，第9卷第2期，頁1-42。
4. 周瑋祺（2014）。〈美國國際貿易委員會涉及標準專利(SEPs)案件所核發限制禁止命令遭否決撤銷〉，《科技法律透析》，第26卷第1期，頁8-9。
5. 林鵬飛（2014）。〈防禦型專利集合之創新商業模式：RPX個案研究〉，《智慧財產月刊》，第189期，頁70-108。
6. 邱敬淵（2016）。〈專利蟑螂與市場競爭〉，《公平交易委員會電子報》，第53期，頁1-5。
7. 陳世傑（2013）。〈美國SHIELD法案圍堵專利蟑螂之思考〉，《科技法律透析》，第25卷第7期，頁2-3。
8. 陳在方（2017）。〈美國專利紛爭解決之關鍵性變革〉，《交大法學評論》，第2期，頁1-62。
9. 陳志清（2010）。〈企業與未實施專利實體之互動關係及因應策略（上）〉，《專利師》，第2期，頁43-51。
10. 陳國成（2016）。〈我國均等論實務之發展——由最高法院102年度台上字第1986號判決觀察〉，《科技法學評論》，第13卷第1期，頁70-114。
11. 馮浩庭（2008）。〈美國專利訴訟程序之研究——現況、困境與美國國會之修法回應〉，《智慧財產月刊》，第110期，頁71-97。
12. 楊宏暉（2016）。〈標準關鍵專利之濫用與限制競爭〉，《公平交易季刊》，第23卷第4期，頁35-86。
13. 楊智傑（2012）。〈美國智慧財產權訴訟中核發禁制令之審查〉，《智慧財產月刊》，第160期，頁51-100。
14. 蔡宗霖（2017）。〈律師費轉嫁機制於美國專利法第285條之運用——以ICON Health & Fitness v. Octane Fitness為例〉，《專利師》，第29期，頁30-60。
15. 羅育如（2015）。〈大學研發成果商業化評估方法初探〉，《科技法律透析》，第27卷第11期，頁13-20。
16. 蘇昱婷、劉尚志（2013）。〈美國智慧財產權訴訟中核發禁制令之審查〉，《智慧財產月刊》，第177期，頁56-104。
（三）網路資料
1. AST聯手Google及各大廠推出IP3專利團購計畫（2016），新聚能科技，載於：https://synergytek.com.tw/blog/2016/05/22/ast-patent-purchase-promotion/ （最後瀏覽日：2022年2月23日）。
2. Blue Spike以訊號粹取技術專利組合提起超過70起專利侵權告訴（2013），科技產業資訊室，載於：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=7765 （最後瀏覽日：2022年2月23日）。
3. Hon. Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Stephen G. Kuni，李淑蓮編譯（2013），新的領證後複審程序間接提升美國專利品質，北美智權報，載於：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Laws/US-74.htm （最後瀏覽日：2022年2月23日）。
4. 王怡婷（2016），何謂不實施專利實體（Non-practicing entitiy，NPE）？，資訊工業策進會科技法律研究所，載於：https://stli.iii.org.tw/article-detail.aspx?no=67&tp=5&d=7300 （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
5. 王怡婷（2016），何謂防禦性聯盟（Defensive Patent Aggregator）？其是否為NPE的重要類型？，科技法律研究所，載於：https://stli.iii.org.tw/article-detail.aspx?no=67&tp=5&d=7320 （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
6. 吳碧娥（2014），台灣企業與NPE合作 可行嗎？北美智權報，載於：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/publish-307.htm （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
7. 我國光電產業廠商在美國專利訴訟案件分析，智慧財產局，載於：https://tiponet.tipo.gov.tw/downloads/module030/industry_3_5.pdf （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
8. 李森堙（2017），談美國專利訴訟地域集中現象，科技政策觀點，載於：https://portal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/article/10322 （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
9. 李森堙（2018），談TC Heartland案判決後美國專利訴訟管轄相關議題之釐清，Research Portal科技政策觀，載於：https://portal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/article/10408 （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
10. 從STC.UNM看如何提高技轉中心專利運營績效（2019），新聚能科技，載於：https://synergytek.com.tw/blog/2019/05/07/stc-unm-vs-tp-link-patent-monetization/ （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
11. 陳宜誠（2014），發明專利進步性判準的演進，北美智權報，載於：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Expert_Column/PE-108.htm （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
12. 舒安居（2014），專利蟑螂的緣起與滅絕：淺談如何跟蟑螂打交道，科技產業資訊室，載於：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/post/Read.aspx?PostID=10029（最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
13. 馮震宇（2014），專利訴訟費用負擔大逆轉 對抗NPE新利器浮現？，科技產業資訊室，載於：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=9660 （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
14. 新墨西哥大學技轉公司啟動專利戰 武器間接來自台灣研究機構（2020），科技產業資訊室，載於：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=16492（最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
15. 葉雲卿（2012），專利訴訟的管理基礎系列 I ─ 淺談ITC專利訴訟，北美智權報，載於：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Expert_Column/Expert-5.htm （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
16. 蔣士棋（2021），台灣科技業如何利用NPE強化技術競爭力？，北美智權報，載於：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/IPNC_210714_0702.htm （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
17. 鴻海子公司鴻穎創新轉移專利給NPE，展開5G標準相關專利訴訟（2021），科技產業資訊室，載於：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=18340 （最後瀏覽日：2022年5月23日）。
 
二、外文文獻
（一）專書
1. E. Allan Farnsworth, An introduction to the Legal System of the United States (third ed. 1999).
2. Lester L. Hewitt, Patent infringement litigation: A Step-by-Step Guide from Dispute through Trial for Executives, Witnesses, and In-House Counsel (2005).
（二）期刊論文
1. Allen W. Wang, Rise of the Patent Intermediaries, 25 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURANL 159 (2010).
2. Allison, John R Lemley, Mark A, Schwartz, David L, How often do non-practicing entities win patent suits?, 32 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURANL 237 (2017).
3. Anna Mayergoyz, Lessons from Europe on How to Tame U.S. Patent Trolls, 42 CORNELL INTERRNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 241, 266 (2009).
4. Aria Soroudi, Defeating Trolls: The Impact of Octane and Highmark on Patent Trolls, 35 LOYOLA LOS ANGELES ENTERTAINMENT LAW REVIEW 319 (2014).
5. Ashley Chuang, Fixing the Failures of Software Patent Protection: Deterring Patent Trolling by Applying Industry-Specific Patentability Standards, 16 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INTERDISCIPLINARY LAW JOURANL 215 (2006).
6. Axel Haus & Steffen Juranek, Non-practicing entities: Enforcement specialists, 53 INTERRNATIONAL REVIEW OF LAW AND ECONOMICS 38 (2018).
7. Chien, Colleen, Startups and patent trolls, 17 STANFORD TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW, Paper No. 9-12, (2013) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2146251 (last visited: May 22, 2022).
8. Christian Helmers, Brian Love & Luke McDonagh, Is There a Patent Troll Problem in the U.K., 24 FORDHAM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL 509 (2014).
9. Cohen, Lauren Gurun, Umit G Kominers & Scott Duke, Patent trolls: Evidence from targeted firms, 65 MANAGEMENT SCIENCE 5461 (2019).
10. Cohen, Lauren, Gurun, Umit G & Kominers, Scott Duke, Empirical evidence on the behavior and impact of patent trolls: A survey, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2708224
11. Colleen V. Chien, Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High-Tech Patents, 87 NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW 1571 (2009).
12. Daniel F. Spulber, How Patents Provide the Foundation of the Market for Inventions, 11 JOURANL OF COMPETITION LAW AND ECONOMICS 271 (2015)
13. Daniel Roth, Patent Litigation Attorneys’ Fees: Shifting from Status to Conduct, 13 CHICAGO-KENT JOURNAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 257 (2013)
14. David L. Schwartz & Jay P. Kesan, Analyzing the Role of Non-Practicing Entities in the Patent System, 99 CORNELL LAW REVIEW 425 (2014).
15. David Rosenberg & Steven Shavell, A Model in Which Suits Are Brought for Their Nuisance Value, 5 INTERRNATIONAL REVIEW OF LAW AND ECONOMICS 3 (1985).
16. Edward Lee, Patent Trolls: Moral Panics, Motions in Limine, and Patent Reform, 19 STANFORD TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW113 (2015).
17. Eric J. Riedel, Patent Infringement Demand Letters: Does Noerr-Pennington or the First Amendment Preempt State-Law Liability for Misleading Statements, 31 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURANL 623 (2016).
18. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes, 99 CORNELL LAW REVIEW 387 (2014).
19. James Bessen, Jennifer Ford & Michael J. Meurer, The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls, 34 REGULATION 26 (2011).
20. James F McDonough, III, The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy, 56 EMORY LAW JOURANL 189 (2006).
21. Jay P. Kesan & Carol M. Hayes, FRAND`s forever: standards, patent transfers, and licensing commitments, 89 INDIANA LAW JOURANL 231 (2014).
22. Joseph Scott Miller, Standard Setting, Patents, and a Access Lock-In: RAND Licensing and the Theory of the Firm, 40 INDIANA LAW REVIEW 351 (2007).
23. Mark A. Lemley, Are Universities Patent Trolls, 18 FORDHAM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL 611 (2008).
24. Matthew Sag, IP Litigation in U.S. District Courts: 1994-2014, 101 IOWA LAW REVIEW 1065 (2016).
25. Michael J. Mazzeo, Jonathan H. Ashtor & Samantha Zyontz, Do NPEs Matter; Non-Practicing Entities and Patent Litigation Outcomes, 9 JOURANL OF COMPETITION LAW AND ECONOMICS 879 (2013).
26. Michael Risch, Patent Troll Myths, 42 SETON HALL LAW REVIEW 457 (2012).
27. Robert P. Merges, The Trouble with Trolls: Innovation, Rent-Seeking, and Patent Law Reform, 24 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURANL 1583 (2009).
28. Robin Feldman & Mark A. Lemley, Do Patent Licensing Demands Mean Innovation, 101 IOWA LAW REVIEW 137 (2015).
29. Sannu K. Shrestha, Trolls or Market-Makers - An Empirical Analysis of Nonpracticing Entities, 110 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 114 (2010).
30. Shawn P. Miller, Who`s Suing Us: Decoding Patent Plaintiffs since 2000 with the Stanford NPE Litigation Dataset, 21 STANFORD TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW 235 (2018).
31. Yan Leychkis, Of Fire Ants and Claim Construction: An Empirical of the Meteoric Rise of the Eastern District of Texas as a Preeminent Forum for Patent Litigation, 9 YALE JOURNAL OF LAW AND TECHNOLOGY 193 (2006-2007).
（三）政府官方文件
1. Ftc.gov, Patent Assertion Entity Activity: An FTC study, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/patent-assertion-entity-activity-ftc-study/p131203_patent_assertion_entity_activity_an_ftc_study_0.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
2. Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL33225.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
3. supremecourt.gov, 2021 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2021year-endreport.pdf#page=5 (last visited: May 22, 2022).
4. Usitc.gov, United States International Trade Commission Annual Performance Plan, FY 2020-21 and Annual Performance Report, FY2019, https://www.usitc.gov/documents/usitc_fy2020-2021_app-fy2019_apr-feb2020.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
（四）國會法案/政策草案
1. Draft Policy Statement On Licensing Negotiations And Remedies For Standards-Essential Patents Subject To Voluntary F/RAND Commitments, https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1453826/download (last visited: May 22, 2022).
2. H.R.6245 - Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act of 2012, 112th Congress (2011-2012), https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/6245?s=1&r=58 (last visited: May 22, 2022).
3. H.R.9 - Innovation Act 114th Congress (2015-2016) https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/9 (last visited: May 22, 2022).
（五）網路資料
1. ahdictionary.com, troll, https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=troll (last visited: May 22, 2022).
2. Eli Whitney Museum, http://eliwhitney.org/museum/about-eli-whitney/inventor#two (last visited: May 22, 2022).
3. forbes.com, Obama admin’s decision to overturn Apple’s ITC import ban was the right one. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/05/obama-admins-decision-to-overturn-apples-itc-import-ban-was-the-right-one/?sh=59461f71c973 (last visited: Feb. 22, 2022).
4. insight.rpxcorp, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-167729-semcon-ip-v-mediatek#patent_information (last visited: May 22, 2022).
5. Insight.rpxcorp. https://insight.rpxcorp.com/entity/1034849-3g-licensing-s-a#patents (last visited: Feb. 22, 2022).
6. Insight.rpxcorp. https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_campaign/73814-american-patents-llc-6-004-049#campaign_overview_section (last visited: Feb. 22, 2022).
7. Intellectual Ventures, https://www.intellectualventures.com/who-we-are/leadership/nathan-myhrvold (last visited: May 22, 2022).
8. Justice.gov, Public comments – Draft policy statement on licensing negotiations and remedies for standards-essential patents, https://www.justice.gov/atr/guidelines-and-policy-statements-0/public-comments-draft-policy-statement-licensing-negotiations-and-remedies-standards-essential (last visited: May 22, 2022).
9. Law360.com, What To Know About RPX`s Deal With Intellectual Ventures, https://www.law360.com/articles/1343848/what-to-know-about-rpx-s-deal-with-intellectual-ventures (last visited: May 22, 2022).
10. Mondaq.com, United States: Biden Administration Releases Draft Of SEP Policy Revamp, https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/1148644/biden-administration-releases-draft-of-sep-policy-revamp (last visited: May 22, 2022).
11. Oliver, E., Richardson, K., & Costa, M. How Intellectual Ventures Is Streamlining Its Portfolio, iam-media.com, https://www.iam-media.com/litigation/how-intellectual-ventures-streamlining-its-portfolio (last visited: May 22, 2022).
12. portal.unifiedpatents.com, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/analytics/ptab-and-litigation?publication_status=Active&publication_type=G (last visited: Feb. 22, 2022).
13. Pwc.com, 2017 Patent Litigation Study, https://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2017-patent-litigation-study.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
14. Pwc.com, 2018 Patent Litigation Study, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2018-pwc-patent-litigation-study.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
15. Randall R. Rader, Colleen V. Chien & David Hricik, Make Patent Trolls Pay in Court, https://socalip.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/make-patent-trolls-pay-in-court-nytimes.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
16. Resis, R., History of the patent troll and lessons learned., https://bannerwitcoff.com/_docs/library/articles/HistoryOfPatentTroll.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
17. Richard Lloyd, IV pulls back from patent acquisitions to focus on monetising existing portfolio through sale and licence, https://www.iam-media.com/litigation/iv-pulls-back-patent-acquisitions-focus-monetising-existing-portfolio-through-sale-and-licence (last visited: May 22, 2022).
18. Rpxcorp.com, 2017 in Review: A Year of Transition, https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/2017-in-review-a-year-of-transition/ (last visited: May 22, 2022).
19. Rpxcorp.com, 2018 Patent Litigation and Marketplace Overview, https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/2018-patent-litigation-and-marketplace-overview/ (last visited: May 22, 2022).
20. Rpxcorp.com, https://www.rpxcorp.com/platform/rpx-network/ (last visited: May 22, 2022).
21. Rpxcorp.com, NPE Litigation: Costs by Key Events, https://www.rpxcorp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/05/Final-NPE-Litigation-Costs-by-Key-Events1.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
22. Rpxcorp.com, Q1 in Review: Courts Tackle SEP Issues as Patent Deals and Third-Party Funding Bolster NPE Activity, https://www.rpxcorp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2022/04/RPX-Q1-in-Review-April-2022.pdf (last visited: May 22, 2022).
23. Rpxcorp.com, Q4 in Review: NPEs Cap Off a Busy 2021 as SEP Policies Evolve in the US and UK, https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/q4-in-review-npes-cap-off-a-busy-2021-as-sep-policies-evolve-in-the-us-and-uk/(last visited: May 22, 2022).
24. Transpacificip.com, http://www.transpacificip.com/our-company/our-story (last visited: May 22, 2022).
25. Unifiedpatents.com, Who do Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) Target? https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2019/11/13/da67lqresu99qshdibvrvv7vu4plk8?utm_source=Unified+Patents+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a216f37e21-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_10_02_08_16_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5140119467-a216f37e21-124538539 (last visited: May 22, 2022).
26. usitc.gov, About Section 337 https://www.usitc.gov/intellectual_property/about_section_337.htm (last visited: May 22, 2022)
27. wikipedia.org, troll, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll (last visited: May 22, 2022).		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202201521en_US