Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 國際間禁訴令之研究──以標準必要專利案件為中心
A Study on International Anti-Suit Injunctions: Focusing on Standard-Essential Patent Cases作者 賴柏廷
Lai, Po-Ting貢獻者 沈宗倫
Shen, Chung-Lun
賴柏廷
Lai, Po-Ting關鍵詞 禁訴令
反禁訴令
標準必要專利
全球專利授權
FRAND權利金費率
Anti-Suit Injunction
Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction
Standard Essential Patent
Global Licensing
FRAND Royalty Rate日期 2026 上傳時間 2-Mar-2026 13:36:30 (UTC+8) 摘要 本論文以國際間標準必要專利爭訟案件的禁訴令為主要研究對象，探討近年來禁訴令、反禁訴令、甚至反反禁訴令等此類程序機制之發展、衝突與影響。 隨著資訊及通訊科技的高度標準化，標準必要專利已成為產業競爭與技術創新的關鍵資產，而近年來湧現的國際間禁訴令、反n禁訴令，使國際標準必要專利訴訟案件變得更加複雜。 本論文透過文獻分析、比較法研究與個案分析，系統性整理美國、英國、德國、法國、中國與印度等主要法域的法院在標準必要專利案件中，核發禁訴令與反n禁訴令之代表性裁判，梳理各國法院於每個重要案例的論理過程，並歸納各國法院對禁訴令、反n禁訴令等機制所抱持的不同態度。接著，本論文列出禁訴令與反n禁訴令之競賽亂象所帶來的負面效果，並藉由介紹「歐盟就中國禁訴令措施向世界貿易組織（WTO）提出控訴」之最新發展，凸顯濫發禁訴令對國際禮讓所造成的嚴重損害。 針對禁訴令所引發的爭議問題，本論文概述並分析學說、實務對此所提出之各種可能解方，包括建立一專門決定FRAND權利金費率的國際審判機構、專屬法院選擇條款、仲裁及臨時授權。 最後，本論文建議從「專利屬地主義」的角度出發，以「各國法院主動節制其管轄範圍」取代現行「由單一國家法院決定SEP全球性FRAND權利金費率」的做法，本文認為此為根本解決禁訴令爭議問題的最佳解方。
This thesis focuses on anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) in international standard-essential patent (SEP) disputes and examines the recent developments and conflicts of such procedural mechanisms, including ASIs, anti-anti-suit injunctions (AASIs), and even anti-anti-anti-suit injunctions (AAASIs). With the increasing standardization of information and communications technologies, SEPs have become critical assets for industrial competition and technological innovation. At the same time, the growing use of ASIs and AnASIs in cross-border litigation has significantly increased the complexity of international SEP disputes. Through doctrinal analysis, comparative law research, and case studies, this thesis systematically reviews landmark cases in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, China, and India concerning the issuance of ASIs and AnASIs in SEP cases. It analyzes the reasoning adopted by courts in key cases and synthesizes the divergent judicial attitudes across jurisdictions toward ASIs. The thesis further examines the negative consequences arising from the escalating competition between ASIs and AnASIs and highlights the serious harm caused to international comity, particularly in light of the European Union’s complaint against China’s ASI practices before the World Trade Organization (WTO). In response to the controversies surrounding ASIs, this thesis reviews and evaluates various solutions proposed in the academic literature and judicial practice, including the establishment of a global FRAND royalty rate-setting tribunal, exclusive forum selection clauses, arbitration, and interim licensing mechanisms. Finally, this thesis argues that a return to the principle of patent territoriality provides a more balanced and sustainable approach. It proposes that courts should exercise self-restraint by limiting their jurisdiction to the determination of domestic FRAND licensing terms, rather than allowing a single national court to set global FRAND royalty rates. Such an approach, the thesis contends, offers the most effective and fundamental solution to the disputes arising from ASIs.參考文獻 一、 中文 (一) 專書 1. 謝銘洋，智慧財產權法，元照，2021年9月，第11版。 2. 劉孔中，解構智財法及其與競爭法的衝突與調和，新學林，2015年6月，第1版。 (二) 期刊論著 1. 沈宗倫，標準必要專利之法定授權與專利權濫用──以誠實信用為中心，政大法學評論，149期，頁1-83，2017年6月。 2. 王立達，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，275期，頁87-110，2018年3月。 3. 宋皇志，標準必要專利全球授權與專利屬地原則之衝突與調和，臺大法學論叢，54卷1期，頁55-135，2025年3月。 4. 胡志光、祝建軍，標準必要專利禁令訴訟中的幾個程序性問題－以華為、三星互訴案為例，中國專利與商標，頁3-8，2020年4期。 5. 祝建軍，標準必要專利全球許可費率司法裁判問題研究，知識產權，頁3-12，2020年10期。 6. 祝建軍，標準必要專利禁訴令與反禁訴令頒發的衝突及應對，知識產權，頁14-24，2021年6期。 7. 莊弘鈺、鍾京洲、劉尚志，標準必要專利FRAND權利金計算──兼論智慧財產法院105年度民專上字第24號判決，交大法學評論，5期，頁19-81，2019年9月。 8. 謝彥民，專利授權訴訟中濫發「禁訴令」違反TRIPS規定--以替代上訴之仲裁庭判斷為中心，經貿法訊，347期，頁1-6，2025年10月。 9. 韓佳盈，談標準必要專利訴訟之「禁訴令」與「反禁訴令」現象，科技法律透析，第35卷第2期，頁30-37，2023年2月。 10. 李素華，公平會高通公司處分案之簡評與省思，月旦法學雜誌，275期，頁111-21，2018年3月。 11. 林恩瑋，國際私法上選購法院（forum shopping）問題之研究，東海大學法學研究，47期，頁237-68，2015年12月。 12. 陳皓芸，標準必要專利權之行使、權利濫用與獨占地位濫用，公平交易季刊，25卷1期，頁81-130，2017年1月。 13. 馮震宇，台灣如何突破高通專利金鐘罩？，能力雜誌，742期，頁110-16，2017年12月。 14. 黃惠敏，標準必要專利與競爭法之管制－以違反FRAND/RAND承諾為中心，中原財經法學，36期，頁171-243，2016年6月。 15. 劉孔中，從沒有準備處理、不能處理到不願處理標準必要專利FRAND授權問題，月旦法學雜誌，296期，頁173-88，2020年1月。 16. 韓佳盈，歐盟循WTO爭端解決機制以解決中國大陸法院頻發禁訴令情形，科技法律透析，34卷7期，頁4-5，2022年7月。 (三) 裁判 1. 中華人民共和國最高人民法院（2019）最高法知民終732、733、734號之一民事裁定書 2. 中華人民共和國湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初743號之一民事裁定書 3. 中華人民共和國湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初743號民事裁定書 4. 台灣智慧財產及商業法院 109 年度民專訴字第52號民事判決 5. 江蘇省南京市中級人民法院（2018）蘇01民初232、233、234號民事判決 6. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初169號之一民事裁定書 7. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初169號之二民事裁定書 8. 廣東省深圳市中級人民法院（2016）粵03民初816號民事判決書 9. 廣東省深圳市中級人民法院（2016）粵03民初840號民事判決書 10. 廣東省深圳市中級人民法院（2020）粵03民初5105號民事裁定書 11. 廣東省深圳市中級人民法院（2020）粵03民初689號之一民事裁定書 (四) 翻譯書 1. 台灣大學法律學院、台大法學基金會編譯，《德國民法典》，北京大學出版社，2017年9月。 (五) 碩博士學位論文 1. 胡君弘，全球標準必要專利禁訴令之研究，國立政治大學商學院科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文，頁44，2023年6月。 2. 劉彥霖，標準必要專利公平、合理、無歧視授權金計算方法之研究，國立政治大學法律學系碩士論文，頁73-75，2023年7月。 (六) 網路資料 1. 中國人民共和國最高人民法院，2020年中國法院10大知識產權案件和50件典型知識產權案例，2021年4月22日， https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/297991.html （最後瀏覽日：2025/11/05）。 2. BBC News中文，中國法院給予蘋果臨時禁令，高通稱或將申請強制執行，2018年12月11日。https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/business-46517846 （最後瀏覽日:2025/10/17）。 3. Oppo發布之官方新聞稿，OPPO與夏普簽訂專利許可協議 結束全球訴訟，2021年10月8日，https://www.oppo.com/tw/newsroom/press/lawsuit-settlement/ （最後瀏覽日：2025/11/05）。 4. 丁文，觀察┃禁訴令新態勢，看OPPO、蘋果在英美法院的應對之策，知產財經全媒體 ，2022年8月11日，https://www.ipeconomy.cn/reping/5585.html （最後瀏覽日: 2025/12/16）。 5. 中共中央辦公廳 國務院辦公廳印發《關於加強知識產權審判領域改革創新若干問題的意見》，新華社，2018年2月27日，https://perma.cc/663J-D6W9 。 6. 中國最高人民知識產權法庭，中國知識產權審判發出的首例禁訴令——案件合議庭詳解康文森公司與華為公司標準必要專利許可糾紛案，2021年2月26日，https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-1056.html (最後瀏覽日：2026年1月20日)。 7. 江日舜，標準必要專利（SEPs）講座分享，中華保護智慧財產權協會（IPPA），2023年3月27日，https://ippa.org.tw/%E6%A8%99%E6%BA%96%E5%BF%85%E8%A6%81%E5%B0%88%E5%88%A9%EF%BC%88seps%EF%BC%89%E8%AC%9B%E5%BA%A7%E5%88%86%E4%BA%AB/ （最後瀏覽日：2025年11月30日）。 8. 李秉燊，SEP權利金費率應由陪審團審理? ─ 2019年TCL v. Ericsson案，北美智權報第252期，2020年1月8日， https://naipnews.naipo.com/27222/ （最後瀏覽日：2025/10/15）。 9. 知產財經，【附裁定】武漢中院駁回愛立信與三星標準必要專利許可使用費糾紛案覆議申請，2021年3月16日，https://www.ipeconomy.cn/mobile/dongtai/2465.html （最後瀏覽日：2025/11/05）。 10. 知產財經，【重磅】武漢中院就三星訴愛立信標準必要專利許可使用費糾紛案作出裁定┃附裁定，2020年12月30日，https://www.ipeconomy.cn/index.php/index/news/magazine_details/id/2148.html （最後瀏覽日：2025/11/05）。 11. 祝建軍，標準必要專利國際平行訴訟禁執令頒發的案件-評中興訴康文森標準必要專利使用費糾紛案，中國知識產權資訊網，2021年5月14日，http://www.iprchn.com/cipnews/news_content.aspx?newsId=129182 （最後瀏覽日，2025/11/05）。 12. 馬忠法，歐盟訴中國知識產權執法案（DS611）專家小組意見及其簡要評析，知產前沿，2025年5月7日，https://www.sohu.com/a/892867468_120133310 （最後瀏覽日：2025/11/12）。 13. 中華人民共和國最高人民法院（2020）最高法知民轄終517號民事裁定書，頁8-10，https://www.chinaiplawupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2020-%E6%9C%80%E9%AB%98%E6%B3%95%E7%9F%A5%E6%B0%91%E8%BE%96%E7%BB%88517-%E5%8F%B7.pdf 14. 最高院知產法庭駁回康文森覆議請求，覆議裁定涉及6項爭議焦點│附裁定，知產財經，2020年11月10日，https://www.ipeconomy.cn/zhuanti/1896.html （最後瀏覽日:2025/11/05）。 15. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初169號之一民事裁定書，頁4-5。參見：知產財經，【裁定書】武漢中院就小米與美國交互數字公司FRAND費率糾紛案作出裁定，2020年9月26日，https://www.ipeconomy.cn/index/news/magazine_details/id/1576.html （最後瀏覽日：2025/04/05）。 16. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初169號之二民事裁定書，參見：【獨家】武漢中院駁回IDC針對小米公司FRAND費率糾紛覆議申請┃附裁定，2020年12月14日，https://www.ipeconomy.cn/index.php/mobile/news/magazine_details/id/2049.html （最後瀏覽日：2025/04/13） 17. 楊智傑，2018年英國Unwired Planet v. Huawei案（一）全球範圍授權才算符合FRAND條件嗎?北美智權報237期，2019年5月22日，https://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPNC_190522_0501.htm （最後瀏覽日：2025/10/05）。 18. 楊智傑，美國與中國法院搶奪標準必要專利FRAND話語權?美國德州東區法院Ericsson v. Samsung Electronics案初步禁制令，北美智權報278期，2021年2月3日，https://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPNC_210203_0502.htm （最後瀏覽日：2025/11/05）。 19. 楊智傑，英國最高法院判決對標準必要專利組合之全球範圍授權有管轄權：2020年8月Unwired Planet v Huawei和Conversant v Huawei and ZTE案，北美智權報第268期，2020年9月9日，http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPNC_200909_0501.htm （最後瀏覽日：2025/12/02）。 二、 英文 (一) 專書 1. JORGE CONTRERAS ET AL., FRAND CASES IN CONTEXT 79 (2026). 2. JORGE CONTRERAS ET AL., THE CAMBRIDGE HANDBOOK OF TECHNICAL STANDARDIZATION LAW: COMPETITION, ANTITRUST, AND PATENTS. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS (2017). (二) 期刊論著 1. Andreas F. Lowenfeld, Forum Shopping, Antisuit Injunctions, Negative Declarations, and Related Tools of International Litigation, 91 AM. J. INT’L L. 323. (1997). 2. Cotter, Thomas F., Is Global FRAND Litigation Spinning Out of Control?, 2021 PATENTLY-O PATENT L.J. (2021). 3. Cotter, Thomas F., Patent Holdup, Patent Remedies, and Antitrust Responses (December 10, 2008). JOURNAL OF CORPORATION LAW, Vol. 34, No. 1151, 2009, Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-39. 4. Gregory Reilly & D. Klerman, Forum Selling, 89 S. CAL. L. REV. 241 (2016). 5. Eli Greenbaum, No Forum to Rule Them All: Comity and Conflict in Transnational FRAND Disputes, 94 WASH. L. REV. 1085, 1118 (2019). 6. Franco Ferrari, 'Forum Shopping' Despite International Uniform Contract Law Conventions, 51(3) INT'L & COMP. L.Q. 689, 707 (2002) 7. The Harvard Law Review Association, Forum Shopping Reconsidered. (1990). HARV. L. REV, 103(7), 1677–1696. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341283 8. Jay P. Kesan & Carol M. Hayes, FRAND’s Forever: Standards, Patent Transfers, and Licensing Commitments, 89 IND. L.J. 232, 239 (2014). 9. Joel R. Paul, The Transformation of International Comity, Vol. 71, No. 3, TRANSDISCIPLINARY CONFLICT OF LAWS (Summer, 2008), at 22-23. 10. Jorge L. Contreras, Global Rate Setting: A Solution for Standard-Essential Patents? 94 WASH. L. REV. 701 (2019). 11. Jorge L. Contreras, Panasonic v. Xiaomi - The UK Interim License, in FRAND CASES IN CONTEXT (Jorge Contreras ed., 2026). 12. Jorge L. Contreras, The European Commission’s Proposed SEP Regulation – A Missed Opportunity for Meaningful Reform? (2024/01/15). CPI TECHREG CHRON, at 14. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4728138 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4728138 13. Jorge L. Contreras, The New Extraterritoriality: FRAND Royalties, Anti-Suit Injunctions and the Global Race To The Bottom In Disputes Over Standards-Essential Patents, 25 BU J. SCI. & TECH. L. 251, at 277-278 (2019). 14. Julien Chaisse & A. Marisport, Arbitration of FRAND Disputes in SEP Licensing: Towards Global Substantive and Procedural Rules, 2021 INTELL. PROP. Q, at 276–77. 15. King F. Tsang & Jyh-An Lee, The Ping-Pong Olympics of Antisuit Injunction in FRAND Litigation, 28 MICH. TECH. L. REV. 305, 320-321 (2022). 16. Larouche, Pierre and Padilla, Jorge and Taffet, Richard, Settling FRAND Disputes: Is Mandatory Arbitration a Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Alternative?. HOOVER IP² WORKING PAPER SERIES No. 13003, TILBURG LAW SCHOOL RESEARCH PAPER No. 023/2013, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2346892 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2346892 17. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents, 28 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1135, 1136 (2013). 18. Norman V. Siebrasse & Thomas F. Cotter, The Value of the Standard, 101 MINN. L. REV. 1159, 1170-79 (2017). 19. Peter K. Yu, Jorge L. Contreras & Yang Yu, Transplanting Anti-suit Injunctions, 71 AM. U. L. REV. 1537. (2022). 20. Raghavendra R. Murthy, Why Can’t We Be FRANDs?: Anti-Suit Injunctions, International Comity, and International Commercial Arbitration in Standard-Essential Patent Litigation, 5 VAND. L. REV. 1609, 1626 (2023). 21. Trevor C. Hartley, Comity and the Use of Antisuit Injunctions in International Litigation, 35 AM. J. COMPAR. L. 507 (1987). (三) 裁判或法院文件 1. Alcatel Lucent SAS v Amazon Digital UK [2025] EWCA Civ 43 (Jan. 28, 2025) Case No: CA-2024-002342. 2. Alcatel Lucent SAS v. Amazon Digital UK [2024] EWHC 1921(Pat) (Jul. 24, 2024) Case No: HP-2023-000038. 3. Amended Complaint, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH& Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD Document 194 (N.D. Cal. July. 6, 2022), Revised Public Version of ECF No.158 with Revised Redactions Pursuant to ECF No.193. 4. Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD. (S.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2017) 5. Applied Medical Distribution Corp. v. Surgical Co. BV, 587 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2009). 6. Case C-170/13 Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v ZTE Corp [EU:C:2015:477] 7. China Trade & Development Corp. v. M.V. Choong Yong, 837 F.2d 33. (2d Cir. 1987). 8. Clerk’s Notice, Cont’l Auto. Sys. V. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2019), ECF No.58 9. Complaint for Breach of FRAND Commitments and Violations of Antitrust and Unfair Competition Laws at 7. Cont’l Auto. Sys v. Avanci, No. 5:19LHK (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2019), ECF No. 1. 10. Continental Automotive Systems v. Avanci, LLC, No. 20-11032, 5. (5th Cir. 2022) 11. Continental’s Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction at 9, 11 n.1, Cont’l Auto. Sys. V. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal June 12, 2019), ECF No.32, 2019 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 14415. 12. Cont'l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, LLC, 27 F.4th 326 (5th Cir. 2022). 13. Cont'l Auto. Sys., Inc. v. Avanci, LLC, 485 F. Supp. 3d 712 (N.D. Tex. 2020). 14. Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L v. Huawei Techs. Co. [2018] EWHC 2549 (Ch) [5], [7]. 15. Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L v. Huawei Techs. Co. [2018] EWHC 808 16. Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Paris, Mar. 3, 2020, RG 19/21426 (Fr.). 17. Defendants’ notice of appeal, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., NO. 2:20-CV-00380-JRG. (Filed Jan. 15, 2021). 18. E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A., 446 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir.2006) 19. Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Anti-interference Injunction Related to Samsung’s Lawsuit Filed in the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of China at 1-2, 12, Ericsson Inc v. Samsung Elecs. Co., NO. 2:20-CV-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2020), ECF No. 11. 20. Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00380-JRG. (E.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2021). 21. Exhibit A, Cont’l Auto. Sys. V. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2019b) [hereinafter Nokia AASI Application], ECF No.95-1 22. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir.2000). 23. Huawei Technologies., Co., LTD. v. Samsung Electronics. Co., LTD. [Order - Nonprecedential], No. 18-1979 (Fed. Cir. 2019) 24. Huawei Techs. Co. v. Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. [2019] EWCA (Civ) 38 [10] (Eng.). 25. Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018) 26. Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO, Document 293. (Filed 05/11/18) 27. InterDigital Technology Corporation v. Pegatron Corporation, Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK, (N.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2015). 28. IPCom GmbH & Co. v. Lenovo Tech. (United Kingdom) Ltd. [2019] EWHC 3030 (Pat) Case No. HP-2019-000024 (Eng.). 29. Judgement, InterDigital Tech. Corp. v. Xiaomi Corp. I.A 8772/2020 in CS(COMM) 295/2020[110], [19] (May 3, 2021). 30. Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp, Ltd & Ors. [2022] EWHC 1703 (Pat). 31. Laker Airways Ltd. v. Pan Am. World Airways, 559 F. Supp. 1124 (D.D.C. 1983), aff’d, Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984) 32. Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d (D.C. Cir. 1984). 33. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, Case No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD Document 71, at 22. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2019) 34. Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD, ECF 40 at 3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2019). 35. Lenovo v Ericsson [2024] EWHC 846 (Ch) Case No: HP-2023-000036. 36. Lenovo v. Ericsson [2025] EWCA Civ 182. Case No: CA-2024-002821. 37. LG München I BeckRS. 2019, 25536 Rn. 58. 38. LG München I BeckRS. 2019, 25536 Rn. 71ff., 84, 87m. Verw. auf EuGH, EuZW 2004, 468, 469－Turner/Grovit 39. LG München I BeckRS. 2019, 25536 Rn. 79 ff. 40. LG München I BeckRS. 2019, 25536 Rn. 88. 41. LG München I Beschl. V. 11.7.2019－21 O 9333/19, Gründe zu II 2. 42. LG München I Beschl. V. 11.9.2021 – 7 O 14276/20 43. LG München I GRUR-RS 2020, 22577. 44. LG München I GRUR-RS 2020, 22577. 45. LG München I GRUR-RS 2021, 3995 Rn.5 – FRAND-Lizenzwilligkeit. https://perma.cc/C928-V6LH 46. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012). 47. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 795 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2015). 48. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (W.D. Wash. 2012). 49. Modi Ent. Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 1177 (2003) (India). 50. Notice of Partial Withdrawal of Plaintiff’s Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction (Dkt. 32), and Request for Same at 1-2, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept 3, 2019) [hereinafter Continental Partial Withdrawal], ECF No. 166, 2019 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 105926. 51. Oberlandesgericht Munchen [OLG Munchen] [Higher Regional Court of Munich] Dec. 12, 2019, 6 U 5042/19 (Ger.). 52. Oberlandesgericht München [OLG München] [Higher Regional Court of Munich] Dec. 12, 2019, 6 U 5689/19 (Ger.). 53. Order Denying Ex Parte Application to Alter Briefing Schedule, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal Oct. 30, 2019a), ECF No.53. 54. Order Denying Motion to Expediate Hearing on Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2019), ECF No.52. 55. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to show Cause at 1-2, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No.5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2019c) [hereinafter Cont’l TRO Order], ECF No.187. 56. Order Granting Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Anti-interference Injunction Related to Samsung’s Lawsuit Filed in the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of China at 1-4, Ericsson Inc v. Samsung Elecs. Co., NO. 2:20-CV-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2020a), ECF No. 14. 57. Order, InterDigital Tech. Corp. v. Xiaomi Corp., I.A. 8772/2020 in CS(COMM) 295/2020 [4] (Oct. 6, 2020) 58. Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Ship or Vessel Eleftheria v. Eleftheria [1969] 2 WLR 1073. 59. Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi Technology UK Limited [2024] EWHC 1733 (Pat) ¶ 3 (Jul. 5, 2024). 60. Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi Technology UK Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1143 ¶¶ 43-44 (Oct 3, 2024). 61. Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi Technology UK Limited [2023] EWHC 2872 (Pat) ¶ 4 (Nov. 8, 2023). 62. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd. v. Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson et al., SACV 14-0341 JVS (ANx) Case 8:14-cv-00341-JVS-DFM Document 279-1. (June 29, 2015) 63. TCL Commc'n Tech. Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 943 F.3d 1360. (Fed. Cir. 2019) 64. TCL Commc'n Tech. Holdings, Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, SACV 14-341 JVS(DFMx). (C.D. Cal. Mar 9, 2018) 65. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al, No. 5:2023cv00569 - Document 71 (E.D.N.C. 2024) 66. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., 120 F.4th 864 (Fed. Cir. 2024). 67. Tribunal de grande instance [TGI] Paris Court of First Instance, IPcom v Lenovo, Nov. 8, 2019, case no RG 19/59311. 68. Unterweser Reederei, GMBH, 428 F.2d 888, 896 (5th Cir.1970). 69. Unwired Planet Int’l Ltd v Huawei Techs. Co. [2017] EWHC 2831 (Pat) (12 October 2017) 70. Unwired Planet Int’l Ltd. v. Huawei Techs. Co. [2017] EWHC (Pat) 711 (5 April 2017) 71. Unwired Planet Int’l Ltd. v. Huawei Techs. Co. [2018] EWCA Civ 2344 (23 October 2018) 72. Unwired Planet Int’l Ltd. v. Huawei Techs. Co. [2020] UKSC 37 (26 August 2020) 73. Verdict Form at 2-3, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 4, 2013), ECF No. 909. 74. Vringo, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., 14-cv-4988 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 3, 2015) 75. Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). (四) WTO之公開文件 1. WTO, DS611: China — Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights — Request for Consultations by the European Union, WT/DS611/1 (Feb 22, 2022), https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds611_e.htm (Last visited: November 10, 2025). 2. WTO, China — Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights — Report of the Panel, WT/DS611/11 (Apr 24, 2025). https://www.worldtradelaw.net/document.php?id=reports/wtopanels/china-iprsenforcement(panel).pdf (Last visited: November 10, 2025). 3. WTO, China —Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights — Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU — Award of the Arbitrators, WT/DS611/ARB25 (Jul 21, 2025). https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/WT/DS/611ARB25.pdf&Open=True (Last visited: November 12, 2025). (五) 網路資料 1. Apple的官方對外聲明，Qualcomm and Apple agree to drop all litigation (2019/04/16) https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/04/qualcomm-and-apple-agree-to-drop-all-litigation/ (Last visited 2025/10/16). 2. Arthur Appleton, Did“the Earth Move Ourt and Away from”China at the WTO? Anti-Suit Injunctions and Standard Essential Patents, CCSDD (2025/07/28) https://www.ccsdd.org/Blogarticles/143-Did-the-Earth-Move-Out-and-Away-from-China-at-the-WTO-.cfm (Last visited 2025/12/24). 3. Ben Trust, Oscar Webb & Daniel Keating, Technology licensing after Unwired Planet – Jurisdictional overreach by the UK Supreme Court or the future of global licensing disputes? (February 2, 2021) https://cms.law/en/media/local/cms-cmno/files/publications/other/future-facing-disputes-technology-licensingafter-unwired-planet-jurisdictional-overreach-by-the-uk-supreme-court-or-the-future-of-global-licen?v=6 (Last visited 2025/12/28). 4. Blake Brittain, Amazon, Nokia settle international patent dispute, REUTERS (2025/05/31) https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/amazon-nokia-settle-international-patent-dispute-2025-03-31/ (Last visited 2026/01/20). 5. Blake Brittain, Ericsson, TCL settle long-running smartphone patent disputes, REUTERS, (2021/07/20) https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/ericsson-tcl-settle-long-running-smartphone-patent-disputes-2021-07-19/ (Last visited 2024/10/08). 6. Camilla Cristalli, Contractual road to FRAND commitments: a welcome clarification, IUS IN ITINERE (2019/04/03), https://iusinitinere.it/contractual-road-to-frand-commitments-a-welcome-clarification/ (Last visited 2025/11/30). 7. Christoph Rauwald, Daimler Settles Mobile – Device Patents Dispute With Sharp (1), BLOOMBERG LAW. (2020/10/07), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/daimler-settles-mobile-device-patents-dispute-with-sharp-1 (Last visited 2025/01/08). 8. Court Listener網站上針對本案InterDigital Technology Corporation v. Pegatron Corporation （5:15-cv-02584）所做的整理。https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4181943/InterDigital-technology-corporation-v-pegatron-corporation/ (Last visited 2025/10/16). 9. Dani Kass, FRAND Rate ‘Nightmare’ Raises Call for International Tribunal, LAW360 (2021/01/14), https://perma.cc/B75G-F8NJ 10. Du Guodong & Liu Qiang, Shenzhen Court Issues “Anti-Suit” Injunction in ZTE and Conversant SEP Licensing Dispute, CHINA JUST. OBSERVER (2021/06/20) [https://perma.cc/Z9VX-65SM]. 11. Enrico Bonadio, David Katz, Anti-Interim-License Injunctions and the Erosion of Contract Rights, KLUWER PATENT BLOG (2025/10/23). https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/patent-blog/anti-interim-license-injunctions-and-the-erosion-of-contract-rights/ (Last visited 2025/12/14). 12. Ericsson官方新聞稿, Ericsson and Lenovo settle patent litigation (2025/04/03), https://www.ericsson.com/en/press-releases/2025/4/ericsson-and-lenovo-settle-patent-litigation (Last visited 2025/12/13). 13. Florian Mueller, Philips and OPPO settle patent licensing dispute: UK court order, IP FRAY. (2024/01/16) https://ipfray.com/philips-and-oppo-settle-patent-Müller, Continental gilicensing-dispute-uk-court-order/ (Last visited 2025/10/24). 14. Florian Müller, Continental gives up antitrust battle against Avanci patent pool--no cert petition filed--but keeps pursuing long-shot case against Nokia in Delaware Chancery Court, FOSS PATENTS. (2022/11/03), http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/11/continental-gives-up-antitrust-battle.html (Last visited 2025/01/08). 15. Florian Müller, Daimler takes Avanci patent license--all major German car makers now Avanci-licensed, but Volkswagen only up to 3G, FOSS PATENTS. (2021/12/22), http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/12/daimler-takes-avanci-patent-license-all.html (Last visited 2025/01/08). 16. Joe Miller, Daimler settles tech licenc[s]e dispute with Nokia, FINANCIAL TIMES. (2021/06/01), https://www.ft.com/content/e0f5344d-bb53-4950-bc4c-5654e8141864 (Last visited 2025/01/08). 17. Konstanze Richter, Worlds apart in SEP litigation, JUVE PATENT (2023/04/20) https://www.juve-patent.com/insights/insights-from-the-cutting-edge-of-global-licence-rate-setting/worlds-apart-in-sep-litigation/ (Last visited 2025/12/02). 18. Mark Cohen, Vringo Settles with ZTE, CHINA IPR (2015/12/14), https://chinaipr.com/2015/12/14/vringo-settles-with-zte/ (Last visited 2024/12/08). 19. Mathieu Klos, First win for Nokia and Arnold Ruess in ongoing battle with Daimler, JUVE PATENT. (2020/08/18), https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/first-win-for-nokia-and-arnold-ruess-in-ongoing-battle-with-daimler/ (Last visited 2025/01/08). 20. Mathieu Klos, InterDigital signs licensing agreement with Xiaomi, JUVE PATENT. (2021/08/06), https://www.juve-patent.com/people-and-business/interdigital-and-xiaomi-sign-licensing-agreement/ (Last visited 2025/11/01). 21. Mathieu Klos, IPCom and Lenovo settle global dispute before French court delivers verdict, JUVE PATENT (2023/04/11), https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/ipcom-and-lenovo-settle-global-dispute-before-french-court-delivers-verdict/ (Last visited 2024/10/21). 22. Mike Freeman, Timeline for Qualcomm’s legal troubles. THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE (2017/08/21) https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2017/08/17/timeline-for-qualcomms-legal-troubles/ (Last visited 2024/10/28). 23. Nicole-Anne Lagrimas, Panasonic strikes deals with Oppo and Xiaomi, ending multijurisdictional SEP spats, IAM (2025/01/14), https://www.iam-media.com/article/panasonic-strikes-deals-oppo-and-xiaomi-ending-multijurisdictional-sep-spats (Last visited 2025/10/27). 24. Qualcomm的官方對外聲明，Qualcomm Wins Patent Infringement Case Against Apple in San Diego (2019/03/15) https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2019/03/qualcomm-wins-patent-infringement-case-against-apple-san-diego (Last visited 2025/10/16). 25. Reuters, InterDigital Says Certain Units Of Co Entered Settlement Agreement With Pegatron Corp. (Jan 17, 2018) https://www.reuters.com/article/brief-InterDigital-says-certain-units-of/brief-InterDigital-says-certain-units-of-co-entered-settlement-agreement-with-pegatron-corp-idUSFWN1PB1BF/ (Last visited 2024/12/31). 26. Shara Tibken, German court dismisses latest Qualcomm patent suit against Apple. (2019/01/15) https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/german-court-dismisses-latest-qualcomm-patent-suit-against-apple/ (Last visited 2025/10/17). 27. Sijia Jiang & Rama Venkat, Huawei, Samsung agree to settle patent dispute in U.S. court, REUTERS (2019/02/27) https://www.reuters.com/article/world/huawei-samsung-agree-to-settle-patent-dispute-in-us-court-idUSKCN1QG10Y/ (Last visited 2025/10/20). 28. Stephen Nellis, Apple tells court Qualcomm chip licenses are invalid. REUTERS (2017/06/20) https://www.reuters.com/article/business/apple-tells-court-qualcomm-chip-licenses-are-invalid-idUSL1N1JH00S/ (Last visited 2025/10/17). 29. Stephen Nellis, Qualcomm accuses Apple of stealing its secrets to help Intel. REUTERS (2018/09/26) https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/qualcomm-accuses-apple-of-stealing-its-secrets-to-help-intel-idUSKCN1M6096/ (Last visited 2025/10/17). 30. Supantha Mukherjee, Ericsson settles patent dispute with Samsung, REUTERS (2021/05/07) https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/ericsson-settles-patent-dispute-with-samsung-2021-05-07/ (Last visited 2025/11/05). 31. Xi Jinping, Stepping up Intellectual Property Rights Protection to Stimulate Innovative Vigor for Fostering a New Development Dynamic, QIUSHI J. (Apr. 30, 2021), [https://perma.cc/AAH7-NTVN]. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法律科際整合研究所
108652010資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108652010 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 沈宗倫 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Shen, Chung-Lun en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 賴柏廷 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lai, Po-Ting en_US dc.creator (作者) 賴柏廷 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lai, Po-Ting en_US dc.date (日期) 2026 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Mar-2026 13:36:30 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Mar-2026 13:36:30 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Mar-2026 13:36:30 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0108652010 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/161930 - 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) 108652010 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本論文以國際間標準必要專利爭訟案件的禁訴令為主要研究對象，探討近年來禁訴令、反禁訴令、甚至反反禁訴令等此類程序機制之發展、衝突與影響。 隨著資訊及通訊科技的高度標準化，標準必要專利已成為產業競爭與技術創新的關鍵資產，而近年來湧現的國際間禁訴令、反n禁訴令，使國際標準必要專利訴訟案件變得更加複雜。 本論文透過文獻分析、比較法研究與個案分析，系統性整理美國、英國、德國、法國、中國與印度等主要法域的法院在標準必要專利案件中，核發禁訴令與反n禁訴令之代表性裁判，梳理各國法院於每個重要案例的論理過程，並歸納各國法院對禁訴令、反n禁訴令等機制所抱持的不同態度。接著，本論文列出禁訴令與反n禁訴令之競賽亂象所帶來的負面效果，並藉由介紹「歐盟就中國禁訴令措施向世界貿易組織（WTO）提出控訴」之最新發展，凸顯濫發禁訴令對國際禮讓所造成的嚴重損害。 針對禁訴令所引發的爭議問題，本論文概述並分析學說、實務對此所提出之各種可能解方，包括建立一專門決定FRAND權利金費率的國際審判機構、專屬法院選擇條款、仲裁及臨時授權。 最後，本論文建議從「專利屬地主義」的角度出發，以「各國法院主動節制其管轄範圍」取代現行「由單一國家法院決定SEP全球性FRAND權利金費率」的做法，本文認為此為根本解決禁訴令爭議問題的最佳解方。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This thesis focuses on anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) in international standard-essential patent (SEP) disputes and examines the recent developments and conflicts of such procedural mechanisms, including ASIs, anti-anti-suit injunctions (AASIs), and even anti-anti-anti-suit injunctions (AAASIs). With the increasing standardization of information and communications technologies, SEPs have become critical assets for industrial competition and technological innovation. At the same time, the growing use of ASIs and AnASIs in cross-border litigation has significantly increased the complexity of international SEP disputes. Through doctrinal analysis, comparative law research, and case studies, this thesis systematically reviews landmark cases in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, China, and India concerning the issuance of ASIs and AnASIs in SEP cases. It analyzes the reasoning adopted by courts in key cases and synthesizes the divergent judicial attitudes across jurisdictions toward ASIs. The thesis further examines the negative consequences arising from the escalating competition between ASIs and AnASIs and highlights the serious harm caused to international comity, particularly in light of the European Union’s complaint against China’s ASI practices before the World Trade Organization (WTO). In response to the controversies surrounding ASIs, this thesis reviews and evaluates various solutions proposed in the academic literature and judicial practice, including the establishment of a global FRAND royalty rate-setting tribunal, exclusive forum selection clauses, arbitration, and interim licensing mechanisms. Finally, this thesis argues that a return to the principle of patent territoriality provides a more balanced and sustainable approach. It proposes that courts should exercise self-restraint by limiting their jurisdiction to the determination of domestic FRAND licensing terms, rather than allowing a single national court to set global FRAND royalty rates. Such an approach, the thesis contends, offers the most effective and fundamental solution to the disputes arising from ASIs. 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 5 第二章 背景介紹 9 第一節 標準、標準制定組織與標準必要專利 9 第二節 公平、合理、無歧視原則 12 第三節 標準必要專利「全球性」權利金費率訂定的崛起 14 第三章 禁訴令 21 第一節 源起 21 第一項 禁訴令之起源 21 第二項 標準必要專利案件的禁訴令 22 第二節 國際間禁訴令、反禁訴令等案件 24 第一項 美國 25 第一款 Microsoft v. Motorola 25 第二款 Vringo v. ZTE 37 第三款 TCL v. Ericsson 42 第四款 InterDigital v. Pegatron 44 第五款 Apple v. Qualcomm 48 第六款 Huawei v. Samsung 55 第二項 英國 61 第一款 Unwired Planet v. Huawei 61 第二款 IPCom v. Lenovo 61 第三款 Philips v. Oppo 68 第三項 法國：IPCom v. Lenovo 73 第四項 德國：Nokia v. Continental 73 第五項 中國 81 第一款 Conversant v. Huawei & ZTE 81 第二款 Oppo v. Sharp 88 第三款 Samsung v. Ericsson 91 第六項 印度：InterDigital v. Xiaomi 103 第三節 比較法觀察 115 第四章 爭議問題與學說討論 125 第一節 禁訴令所造成的爭議問題 125 第一項 因法院選擇而衍生的負面影響 125 第一款 選用法院（Forum Shopping） 125 第二款 奔向法院（Race to the Courthouse） 126 第三款 逐底競爭（Race to the Bottom / Forum Selling） 126 第四款 對國際禮讓造成的影響（the Impact on International Comity） 128 第二項 禁訴令的使用已偏離制度設計本旨 129 第二節 歐盟就中國禁訴令相關爭議向世界貿易組織（WTO）提出控訴 130 第一項 背景介紹 130 第二項 WTO專家小組見解及WTO仲裁庭見解 133 第三項 評析 137 第三節 學說討論與可能解方 139 第一項 建立一專門決定FRAND權利金費率的國際審判機構（Global FRAND Royalty Rate-Setting Tribunal） 139 第二項 專屬法院選擇條款（Exclusive Forum Selection Clause） 145 第三項 仲裁（Arbitration） 149 第四項 臨時授權（Interim License） 154 第一款 Panasonic v. Xiaomi 154 第二款 Amazon v. Nokia 158 第三款 Ericsson v. Lenovo 162 第四款 評析 167 第五項 本文見解 168 第五章 結論 173 參考文獻 177 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1646846 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108652010 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 禁訴令 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 反禁訴令 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 標準必要專利 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 全球專利授權 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) FRAND權利金費率 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Anti-Suit Injunction en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Standard Essential Patent en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Global Licensing en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) FRAND Royalty Rate en_US dc.title (題名) 國際間禁訴令之研究──以標準必要專利案件為中心 zh_TW dc.title (題名) A Study on International Anti-Suit Injunctions: Focusing on Standard-Essential Patent Cases en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、 中文 (一) 專書 1. 謝銘洋，智慧財產權法，元照，2021年9月，第11版。 2. 劉孔中，解構智財法及其與競爭法的衝突與調和，新學林，2015年6月，第1版。 (二) 期刊論著 1. 沈宗倫，標準必要專利之法定授權與專利權濫用──以誠實信用為中心，政大法學評論，149期，頁1-83，2017年6月。 2. 王立達，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，275期，頁87-110，2018年3月。 3. 宋皇志，標準必要專利全球授權與專利屬地原則之衝突與調和，臺大法學論叢，54卷1期，頁55-135，2025年3月。 4. 胡志光、祝建軍，標準必要專利禁令訴訟中的幾個程序性問題－以華為、三星互訴案為例，中國專利與商標，頁3-8，2020年4期。 5. 祝建軍，標準必要專利全球許可費率司法裁判問題研究，知識產權，頁3-12，2020年10期。 6. 祝建軍，標準必要專利禁訴令與反禁訴令頒發的衝突及應對，知識產權，頁14-24，2021年6期。 7. 莊弘鈺、鍾京洲、劉尚志，標準必要專利FRAND權利金計算──兼論智慧財產法院105年度民專上字第24號判決，交大法學評論，5期，頁19-81，2019年9月。 8. 謝彥民，專利授權訴訟中濫發「禁訴令」違反TRIPS規定--以替代上訴之仲裁庭判斷為中心，經貿法訊，347期，頁1-6，2025年10月。 9. 韓佳盈，談標準必要專利訴訟之「禁訴令」與「反禁訴令」現象，科技法律透析，第35卷第2期，頁30-37，2023年2月。 10. 李素華，公平會高通公司處分案之簡評與省思，月旦法學雜誌，275期，頁111-21，2018年3月。 11. 林恩瑋，國際私法上選購法院（forum shopping）問題之研究，東海大學法學研究，47期，頁237-68，2015年12月。 12. 陳皓芸，標準必要專利權之行使、權利濫用與獨占地位濫用，公平交易季刊，25卷1期，頁81-130，2017年1月。 13. 馮震宇，台灣如何突破高通專利金鐘罩？，能力雜誌，742期，頁110-16，2017年12月。 14. 黃惠敏，標準必要專利與競爭法之管制－以違反FRAND/RAND承諾為中心，中原財經法學，36期，頁171-243，2016年6月。 15. 劉孔中，從沒有準備處理、不能處理到不願處理標準必要專利FRAND授權問題，月旦法學雜誌，296期，頁173-88，2020年1月。 16. 韓佳盈，歐盟循WTO爭端解決機制以解決中國大陸法院頻發禁訴令情形，科技法律透析，34卷7期，頁4-5，2022年7月。 (三) 裁判 1. 中華人民共和國最高人民法院（2019）最高法知民終732、733、734號之一民事裁定書 2. 中華人民共和國湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初743號之一民事裁定書 3. 中華人民共和國湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初743號民事裁定書 4. 台灣智慧財產及商業法院 109 年度民專訴字第52號民事判決 5. 江蘇省南京市中級人民法院（2018）蘇01民初232、233、234號民事判決 6. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初169號之一民事裁定書 7. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初169號之二民事裁定書 8. 廣東省深圳市中級人民法院（2016）粵03民初816號民事判決書 9. 廣東省深圳市中級人民法院（2016）粵03民初840號民事判決書 10. 廣東省深圳市中級人民法院（2020）粵03民初5105號民事裁定書 11. 廣東省深圳市中級人民法院（2020）粵03民初689號之一民事裁定書 (四) 翻譯書 1. 台灣大學法律學院、台大法學基金會編譯，《德國民法典》，北京大學出版社，2017年9月。 (五) 碩博士學位論文 1. 胡君弘，全球標準必要專利禁訴令之研究，國立政治大學商學院科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文，頁44，2023年6月。 2. 劉彥霖，標準必要專利公平、合理、無歧視授權金計算方法之研究，國立政治大學法律學系碩士論文，頁73-75，2023年7月。 (六) 網路資料 1. 中國人民共和國最高人民法院，2020年中國法院10大知識產權案件和50件典型知識產權案例，2021年4月22日， https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/297991.html （最後瀏覽日：2025/11/05）。 2. BBC News中文，中國法院給予蘋果臨時禁令，高通稱或將申請強制執行，2018年12月11日。https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/business-46517846 （最後瀏覽日:2025/10/17）。 3. Oppo發布之官方新聞稿，OPPO與夏普簽訂專利許可協議 結束全球訴訟，2021年10月8日，https://www.oppo.com/tw/newsroom/press/lawsuit-settlement/ （最後瀏覽日：2025/11/05）。 4. 丁文，觀察┃禁訴令新態勢，看OPPO、蘋果在英美法院的應對之策，知產財經全媒體 ，2022年8月11日，https://www.ipeconomy.cn/reping/5585.html （最後瀏覽日: 2025/12/16）。 5. 中共中央辦公廳 國務院辦公廳印發《關於加強知識產權審判領域改革創新若干問題的意見》，新華社，2018年2月27日，https://perma.cc/663J-D6W9 。 6. 中國最高人民知識產權法庭，中國知識產權審判發出的首例禁訴令——案件合議庭詳解康文森公司與華為公司標準必要專利許可糾紛案，2021年2月26日，https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-1056.html (最後瀏覽日：2026年1月20日)。 7. 江日舜，標準必要專利（SEPs）講座分享，中華保護智慧財產權協會（IPPA），2023年3月27日，https://ippa.org.tw/%E6%A8%99%E6%BA%96%E5%BF%85%E8%A6%81%E5%B0%88%E5%88%A9%EF%BC%88seps%EF%BC%89%E8%AC%9B%E5%BA%A7%E5%88%86%E4%BA%AB/ （最後瀏覽日：2025年11月30日）。 8. 李秉燊，SEP權利金費率應由陪審團審理? ─ 2019年TCL v. Ericsson案，北美智權報第252期，2020年1月8日， https://naipnews.naipo.com/27222/ （最後瀏覽日：2025/10/15）。 9. 知產財經，【附裁定】武漢中院駁回愛立信與三星標準必要專利許可使用費糾紛案覆議申請，2021年3月16日，https://www.ipeconomy.cn/mobile/dongtai/2465.html （最後瀏覽日：2025/11/05）。 10. 知產財經，【重磅】武漢中院就三星訴愛立信標準必要專利許可使用費糾紛案作出裁定┃附裁定，2020年12月30日，https://www.ipeconomy.cn/index.php/index/news/magazine_details/id/2148.html （最後瀏覽日：2025/11/05）。 11. 祝建軍，標準必要專利國際平行訴訟禁執令頒發的案件-評中興訴康文森標準必要專利使用費糾紛案，中國知識產權資訊網，2021年5月14日，http://www.iprchn.com/cipnews/news_content.aspx?newsId=129182 （最後瀏覽日，2025/11/05）。 12. 馬忠法，歐盟訴中國知識產權執法案（DS611）專家小組意見及其簡要評析，知產前沿，2025年5月7日，https://www.sohu.com/a/892867468_120133310 （最後瀏覽日：2025/11/12）。 13. 中華人民共和國最高人民法院（2020）最高法知民轄終517號民事裁定書，頁8-10，https://www.chinaiplawupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2020-%E6%9C%80%E9%AB%98%E6%B3%95%E7%9F%A5%E6%B0%91%E8%BE%96%E7%BB%88517-%E5%8F%B7.pdf 14. 最高院知產法庭駁回康文森覆議請求，覆議裁定涉及6項爭議焦點│附裁定，知產財經，2020年11月10日，https://www.ipeconomy.cn/zhuanti/1896.html （最後瀏覽日:2025/11/05）。 15. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初169號之一民事裁定書，頁4-5。參見：知產財經，【裁定書】武漢中院就小米與美國交互數字公司FRAND費率糾紛案作出裁定，2020年9月26日，https://www.ipeconomy.cn/index/news/magazine_details/id/1576.html （最後瀏覽日：2025/04/05）。 16. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初169號之二民事裁定書，參見：【獨家】武漢中院駁回IDC針對小米公司FRAND費率糾紛覆議申請┃附裁定，2020年12月14日，https://www.ipeconomy.cn/index.php/mobile/news/magazine_details/id/2049.html （最後瀏覽日：2025/04/13） 17. 楊智傑，2018年英國Unwired Planet v. Huawei案（一）全球範圍授權才算符合FRAND條件嗎?北美智權報237期，2019年5月22日，https://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPNC_190522_0501.htm （最後瀏覽日：2025/10/05）。 18. 楊智傑，美國與中國法院搶奪標準必要專利FRAND話語權?美國德州東區法院Ericsson v. Samsung Electronics案初步禁制令，北美智權報278期，2021年2月3日，https://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPNC_210203_0502.htm （最後瀏覽日：2025/11/05）。 19. 楊智傑，英國最高法院判決對標準必要專利組合之全球範圍授權有管轄權：2020年8月Unwired Planet v Huawei和Conversant v Huawei and ZTE案，北美智權報第268期，2020年9月9日，http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPNC_200909_0501.htm （最後瀏覽日：2025/12/02）。 二、 英文 (一) 專書 1. JORGE CONTRERAS ET AL., FRAND CASES IN CONTEXT 79 (2026). 2. JORGE CONTRERAS ET AL., THE CAMBRIDGE HANDBOOK OF TECHNICAL STANDARDIZATION LAW: COMPETITION, ANTITRUST, AND PATENTS. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS (2017). (二) 期刊論著 1. Andreas F. Lowenfeld, Forum Shopping, Antisuit Injunctions, Negative Declarations, and Related Tools of International Litigation, 91 AM. J. INT’L L. 323. (1997). 2. Cotter, Thomas F., Is Global FRAND Litigation Spinning Out of Control?, 2021 PATENTLY-O PATENT L.J. (2021). 3. Cotter, Thomas F., Patent Holdup, Patent Remedies, and Antitrust Responses (December 10, 2008). JOURNAL OF CORPORATION LAW, Vol. 34, No. 1151, 2009, Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-39. 4. Gregory Reilly & D. Klerman, Forum Selling, 89 S. CAL. L. REV. 241 (2016). 5. Eli Greenbaum, No Forum to Rule Them All: Comity and Conflict in Transnational FRAND Disputes, 94 WASH. L. REV. 1085, 1118 (2019). 6. Franco Ferrari, 'Forum Shopping' Despite International Uniform Contract Law Conventions, 51(3) INT'L & COMP. L.Q. 689, 707 (2002) 7. The Harvard Law Review Association, Forum Shopping Reconsidered. (1990). HARV. L. REV, 103(7), 1677–1696. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341283 8. Jay P. Kesan & Carol M. Hayes, FRAND’s Forever: Standards, Patent Transfers, and Licensing Commitments, 89 IND. L.J. 232, 239 (2014). 9. Joel R. Paul, The Transformation of International Comity, Vol. 71, No. 3, TRANSDISCIPLINARY CONFLICT OF LAWS (Summer, 2008), at 22-23. 10. Jorge L. Contreras, Global Rate Setting: A Solution for Standard-Essential Patents? 94 WASH. L. REV. 701 (2019). 11. Jorge L. Contreras, Panasonic v. Xiaomi - The UK Interim License, in FRAND CASES IN CONTEXT (Jorge Contreras ed., 2026). 12. Jorge L. Contreras, The European Commission’s Proposed SEP Regulation – A Missed Opportunity for Meaningful Reform? (2024/01/15). CPI TECHREG CHRON, at 14. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4728138 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4728138 13. Jorge L. Contreras, The New Extraterritoriality: FRAND Royalties, Anti-Suit Injunctions and the Global Race To The Bottom In Disputes Over Standards-Essential Patents, 25 BU J. SCI. & TECH. L. 251, at 277-278 (2019). 14. Julien Chaisse & A. Marisport, Arbitration of FRAND Disputes in SEP Licensing: Towards Global Substantive and Procedural Rules, 2021 INTELL. PROP. Q, at 276–77. 15. King F. Tsang & Jyh-An Lee, The Ping-Pong Olympics of Antisuit Injunction in FRAND Litigation, 28 MICH. TECH. L. REV. 305, 320-321 (2022). 16. Larouche, Pierre and Padilla, Jorge and Taffet, Richard, Settling FRAND Disputes: Is Mandatory Arbitration a Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Alternative?. HOOVER IP² WORKING PAPER SERIES No. 13003, TILBURG LAW SCHOOL RESEARCH PAPER No. 023/2013, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2346892 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2346892 17. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents, 28 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1135, 1136 (2013). 18. Norman V. Siebrasse & Thomas F. Cotter, The Value of the Standard, 101 MINN. L. REV. 1159, 1170-79 (2017). 19. Peter K. Yu, Jorge L. Contreras & Yang Yu, Transplanting Anti-suit Injunctions, 71 AM. U. L. REV. 1537. (2022). 20. Raghavendra R. Murthy, Why Can’t We Be FRANDs?: Anti-Suit Injunctions, International Comity, and International Commercial Arbitration in Standard-Essential Patent Litigation, 5 VAND. L. REV. 1609, 1626 (2023). 21. Trevor C. Hartley, Comity and the Use of Antisuit Injunctions in International Litigation, 35 AM. J. COMPAR. L. 507 (1987). (三) 裁判或法院文件 1. Alcatel Lucent SAS v Amazon Digital UK [2025] EWCA Civ 43 (Jan. 28, 2025) Case No: CA-2024-002342. 2. Alcatel Lucent SAS v. Amazon Digital UK [2024] EWHC 1921(Pat) (Jul. 24, 2024) Case No: HP-2023-000038. 3. Amended Complaint, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH& Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD Document 194 (N.D. Cal. July. 6, 2022), Revised Public Version of ECF No.158 with Revised Redactions Pursuant to ECF No.193. 4. Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD. (S.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2017) 5. Applied Medical Distribution Corp. v. Surgical Co. BV, 587 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2009). 6. Case C-170/13 Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v ZTE Corp [EU:C:2015:477] 7. China Trade & Development Corp. v. M.V. Choong Yong, 837 F.2d 33. (2d Cir. 1987). 8. Clerk’s Notice, Cont’l Auto. Sys. V. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2019), ECF No.58 9. Complaint for Breach of FRAND Commitments and Violations of Antitrust and Unfair Competition Laws at 7. Cont’l Auto. Sys v. Avanci, No. 5:19LHK (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2019), ECF No. 1. 10. Continental Automotive Systems v. Avanci, LLC, No. 20-11032, 5. (5th Cir. 2022) 11. Continental’s Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction at 9, 11 n.1, Cont’l Auto. Sys. V. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal June 12, 2019), ECF No.32, 2019 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 14415. 12. Cont'l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, LLC, 27 F.4th 326 (5th Cir. 2022). 13. Cont'l Auto. Sys., Inc. v. Avanci, LLC, 485 F. Supp. 3d 712 (N.D. Tex. 2020). 14. Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L v. Huawei Techs. Co. [2018] EWHC 2549 (Ch) [5], [7]. 15. Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L v. Huawei Techs. Co. [2018] EWHC 808 16. Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Paris, Mar. 3, 2020, RG 19/21426 (Fr.). 17. Defendants’ notice of appeal, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., NO. 2:20-CV-00380-JRG. (Filed Jan. 15, 2021). 18. E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A., 446 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir.2006) 19. Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Anti-interference Injunction Related to Samsung’s Lawsuit Filed in the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of China at 1-2, 12, Ericsson Inc v. Samsung Elecs. Co., NO. 2:20-CV-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2020), ECF No. 11. 20. Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00380-JRG. (E.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2021). 21. Exhibit A, Cont’l Auto. Sys. V. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2019b) [hereinafter Nokia AASI Application], ECF No.95-1 22. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir.2000). 23. Huawei Technologies., Co., LTD. v. Samsung Electronics. Co., LTD. [Order - Nonprecedential], No. 18-1979 (Fed. Cir. 2019) 24. Huawei Techs. Co. v. Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. [2019] EWCA (Civ) 38 [10] (Eng.). 25. Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018) 26. Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO, Document 293. (Filed 05/11/18) 27. InterDigital Technology Corporation v. Pegatron Corporation, Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK, (N.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2015). 28. IPCom GmbH & Co. v. Lenovo Tech. (United Kingdom) Ltd. [2019] EWHC 3030 (Pat) Case No. HP-2019-000024 (Eng.). 29. Judgement, InterDigital Tech. Corp. v. Xiaomi Corp. I.A 8772/2020 in CS(COMM) 295/2020[110], [19] (May 3, 2021). 30. Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp, Ltd & Ors. [2022] EWHC 1703 (Pat). 31. Laker Airways Ltd. v. Pan Am. World Airways, 559 F. Supp. 1124 (D.D.C. 1983), aff’d, Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984) 32. Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d (D.C. Cir. 1984). 33. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, Case No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD Document 71, at 22. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2019) 34. Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD, ECF 40 at 3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2019). 35. Lenovo v Ericsson [2024] EWHC 846 (Ch) Case No: HP-2023-000036. 36. Lenovo v. Ericsson [2025] EWCA Civ 182. Case No: CA-2024-002821. 37. LG München I BeckRS. 2019, 25536 Rn. 58. 38. LG München I BeckRS. 2019, 25536 Rn. 71ff., 84, 87m. Verw. auf EuGH, EuZW 2004, 468, 469－Turner/Grovit 39. LG München I BeckRS. 2019, 25536 Rn. 79 ff. 40. LG München I BeckRS. 2019, 25536 Rn. 88. 41. LG München I Beschl. V. 11.7.2019－21 O 9333/19, Gründe zu II 2. 42. LG München I Beschl. V. 11.9.2021 – 7 O 14276/20 43. LG München I GRUR-RS 2020, 22577. 44. LG München I GRUR-RS 2020, 22577. 45. LG München I GRUR-RS 2021, 3995 Rn.5 – FRAND-Lizenzwilligkeit. https://perma.cc/C928-V6LH 46. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012). 47. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 795 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2015). 48. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (W.D. Wash. 2012). 49. Modi Ent. Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 1177 (2003) (India). 50. Notice of Partial Withdrawal of Plaintiff’s Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction (Dkt. 32), and Request for Same at 1-2, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept 3, 2019) [hereinafter Continental Partial Withdrawal], ECF No. 166, 2019 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 105926. 51. Oberlandesgericht Munchen [OLG Munchen] [Higher Regional Court of Munich] Dec. 12, 2019, 6 U 5042/19 (Ger.). 52. Oberlandesgericht München [OLG München] [Higher Regional Court of Munich] Dec. 12, 2019, 6 U 5689/19 (Ger.). 53. Order Denying Ex Parte Application to Alter Briefing Schedule, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal Oct. 30, 2019a), ECF No.53. 54. Order Denying Motion to Expediate Hearing on Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2019), ECF No.52. 55. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to show Cause at 1-2, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No.5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2019c) [hereinafter Cont’l TRO Order], ECF No.187. 56. Order Granting Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Anti-interference Injunction Related to Samsung’s Lawsuit Filed in the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of China at 1-4, Ericsson Inc v. Samsung Elecs. Co., NO. 2:20-CV-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2020a), ECF No. 14. 57. Order, InterDigital Tech. Corp. v. Xiaomi Corp., I.A. 8772/2020 in CS(COMM) 295/2020 [4] (Oct. 6, 2020) 58. Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Ship or Vessel Eleftheria v. Eleftheria [1969] 2 WLR 1073. 59. Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi Technology UK Limited [2024] EWHC 1733 (Pat) ¶ 3 (Jul. 5, 2024). 60. Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi Technology UK Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1143 ¶¶ 43-44 (Oct 3, 2024). 61. Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi Technology UK Limited [2023] EWHC 2872 (Pat) ¶ 4 (Nov. 8, 2023). 62. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd. v. Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson et al., SACV 14-0341 JVS (ANx) Case 8:14-cv-00341-JVS-DFM Document 279-1. (June 29, 2015) 63. TCL Commc'n Tech. Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 943 F.3d 1360. (Fed. Cir. 2019) 64. TCL Commc'n Tech. Holdings, Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, SACV 14-341 JVS(DFMx). (C.D. Cal. Mar 9, 2018) 65. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al, No. 5:2023cv00569 - Document 71 (E.D.N.C. 2024) 66. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., 120 F.4th 864 (Fed. Cir. 2024). 67. Tribunal de grande instance [TGI] Paris Court of First Instance, IPcom v Lenovo, Nov. 8, 2019, case no RG 19/59311. 68. Unterweser Reederei, GMBH, 428 F.2d 888, 896 (5th Cir.1970). 69. Unwired Planet Int’l Ltd v Huawei Techs. Co. [2017] EWHC 2831 (Pat) (12 October 2017) 70. Unwired Planet Int’l Ltd. v. Huawei Techs. Co. [2017] EWHC (Pat) 711 (5 April 2017) 71. Unwired Planet Int’l Ltd. v. Huawei Techs. Co. [2018] EWCA Civ 2344 (23 October 2018) 72. Unwired Planet Int’l Ltd. v. Huawei Techs. Co. [2020] UKSC 37 (26 August 2020) 73. Verdict Form at 2-3, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 4, 2013), ECF No. 909. 74. Vringo, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., 14-cv-4988 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 3, 2015) 75. Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). (四) WTO之公開文件 1. WTO, DS611: China — Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights — Request for Consultations by the European Union, WT/DS611/1 (Feb 22, 2022), https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds611_e.htm (Last visited: November 10, 2025). 2. WTO, China — Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights — Report of the Panel, WT/DS611/11 (Apr 24, 2025). https://www.worldtradelaw.net/document.php?id=reports/wtopanels/china-iprsenforcement(panel).pdf (Last visited: November 10, 2025). 3. WTO, China —Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights — Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU — Award of the Arbitrators, WT/DS611/ARB25 (Jul 21, 2025). https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/WT/DS/611ARB25.pdf&Open=True (Last visited: November 12, 2025). (五) 網路資料 1. Apple的官方對外聲明，Qualcomm and Apple agree to drop all litigation (2019/04/16) https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/04/qualcomm-and-apple-agree-to-drop-all-litigation/ (Last visited 2025/10/16). 2. Arthur Appleton, Did“the Earth Move Ourt and Away from”China at the WTO? Anti-Suit Injunctions and Standard Essential Patents, CCSDD (2025/07/28) https://www.ccsdd.org/Blogarticles/143-Did-the-Earth-Move-Out-and-Away-from-China-at-the-WTO-.cfm (Last visited 2025/12/24). 3. Ben Trust, Oscar Webb & Daniel Keating, Technology licensing after Unwired Planet – Jurisdictional overreach by the UK Supreme Court or the future of global licensing disputes? (February 2, 2021) https://cms.law/en/media/local/cms-cmno/files/publications/other/future-facing-disputes-technology-licensingafter-unwired-planet-jurisdictional-overreach-by-the-uk-supreme-court-or-the-future-of-global-licen?v=6 (Last visited 2025/12/28). 4. Blake Brittain, Amazon, Nokia settle international patent dispute, REUTERS (2025/05/31) https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/amazon-nokia-settle-international-patent-dispute-2025-03-31/ (Last visited 2026/01/20). 5. Blake Brittain, Ericsson, TCL settle long-running smartphone patent disputes, REUTERS, (2021/07/20) https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/ericsson-tcl-settle-long-running-smartphone-patent-disputes-2021-07-19/ (Last visited 2024/10/08). 6. Camilla Cristalli, Contractual road to FRAND commitments: a welcome clarification, IUS IN ITINERE (2019/04/03), https://iusinitinere.it/contractual-road-to-frand-commitments-a-welcome-clarification/ (Last visited 2025/11/30). 7. Christoph Rauwald, Daimler Settles Mobile – Device Patents Dispute With Sharp (1), BLOOMBERG LAW. (2020/10/07), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/daimler-settles-mobile-device-patents-dispute-with-sharp-1 (Last visited 2025/01/08). 8. Court Listener網站上針對本案InterDigital Technology Corporation v. Pegatron Corporation （5:15-cv-02584）所做的整理。https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4181943/InterDigital-technology-corporation-v-pegatron-corporation/ (Last visited 2025/10/16). 9. Dani Kass, FRAND Rate ‘Nightmare’ Raises Call for International Tribunal, LAW360 (2021/01/14), https://perma.cc/B75G-F8NJ 10. Du Guodong & Liu Qiang, Shenzhen Court Issues “Anti-Suit” Injunction in ZTE and Conversant SEP Licensing Dispute, CHINA JUST. OBSERVER (2021/06/20) [https://perma.cc/Z9VX-65SM]. 11. Enrico Bonadio, David Katz, Anti-Interim-License Injunctions and the Erosion of Contract Rights, KLUWER PATENT BLOG (2025/10/23). https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/patent-blog/anti-interim-license-injunctions-and-the-erosion-of-contract-rights/ (Last visited 2025/12/14). 12. Ericsson官方新聞稿, Ericsson and Lenovo settle patent litigation (2025/04/03), https://www.ericsson.com/en/press-releases/2025/4/ericsson-and-lenovo-settle-patent-litigation (Last visited 2025/12/13). 13. Florian Mueller, Philips and OPPO settle patent licensing dispute: UK court order, IP FRAY. (2024/01/16) https://ipfray.com/philips-and-oppo-settle-patent-Müller, Continental gilicensing-dispute-uk-court-order/ (Last visited 2025/10/24). 14. Florian Müller, Continental gives up antitrust battle against Avanci patent pool--no cert petition filed--but keeps pursuing long-shot case against Nokia in Delaware Chancery Court, FOSS PATENTS. (2022/11/03), http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/11/continental-gives-up-antitrust-battle.html (Last visited 2025/01/08). 15. Florian Müller, Daimler takes Avanci patent license--all major German car makers now Avanci-licensed, but Volkswagen only up to 3G, FOSS PATENTS. (2021/12/22), http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/12/daimler-takes-avanci-patent-license-all.html (Last visited 2025/01/08). 16. Joe Miller, Daimler settles tech licenc[s]e dispute with Nokia, FINANCIAL TIMES. (2021/06/01), https://www.ft.com/content/e0f5344d-bb53-4950-bc4c-5654e8141864 (Last visited 2025/01/08). 17. Konstanze Richter, Worlds apart in SEP litigation, JUVE PATENT (2023/04/20) https://www.juve-patent.com/insights/insights-from-the-cutting-edge-of-global-licence-rate-setting/worlds-apart-in-sep-litigation/ (Last visited 2025/12/02). 18. Mark Cohen, Vringo Settles with ZTE, CHINA IPR (2015/12/14), https://chinaipr.com/2015/12/14/vringo-settles-with-zte/ (Last visited 2024/12/08). 19. Mathieu Klos, First win for Nokia and Arnold Ruess in ongoing battle with Daimler, JUVE PATENT. (2020/08/18), https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/first-win-for-nokia-and-arnold-ruess-in-ongoing-battle-with-daimler/ (Last visited 2025/01/08). 20. Mathieu Klos, InterDigital signs licensing agreement with Xiaomi, JUVE PATENT. (2021/08/06), https://www.juve-patent.com/people-and-business/interdigital-and-xiaomi-sign-licensing-agreement/ (Last visited 2025/11/01). 21. Mathieu Klos, IPCom and Lenovo settle global dispute before French court delivers verdict, JUVE PATENT (2023/04/11), https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/ipcom-and-lenovo-settle-global-dispute-before-french-court-delivers-verdict/ (Last visited 2024/10/21). 22. Mike Freeman, Timeline for Qualcomm’s legal troubles. THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE (2017/08/21) https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2017/08/17/timeline-for-qualcomms-legal-troubles/ (Last visited 2024/10/28). 23. Nicole-Anne Lagrimas, Panasonic strikes deals with Oppo and Xiaomi, ending multijurisdictional SEP spats, IAM (2025/01/14), https://www.iam-media.com/article/panasonic-strikes-deals-oppo-and-xiaomi-ending-multijurisdictional-sep-spats (Last visited 2025/10/27). 24. Qualcomm的官方對外聲明，Qualcomm Wins Patent Infringement Case Against Apple in San Diego (2019/03/15) https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2019/03/qualcomm-wins-patent-infringement-case-against-apple-san-diego (Last visited 2025/10/16). 25. Reuters, InterDigital Says Certain Units Of Co Entered Settlement Agreement With Pegatron Corp. (Jan 17, 2018) https://www.reuters.com/article/brief-InterDigital-says-certain-units-of/brief-InterDigital-says-certain-units-of-co-entered-settlement-agreement-with-pegatron-corp-idUSFWN1PB1BF/ (Last visited 2024/12/31). 26. Shara Tibken, German court dismisses latest Qualcomm patent suit against Apple. (2019/01/15) https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/german-court-dismisses-latest-qualcomm-patent-suit-against-apple/ (Last visited 2025/10/17). 27. Sijia Jiang & Rama Venkat, Huawei, Samsung agree to settle patent dispute in U.S. court, REUTERS (2019/02/27) https://www.reuters.com/article/world/huawei-samsung-agree-to-settle-patent-dispute-in-us-court-idUSKCN1QG10Y/ (Last visited 2025/10/20). 28. Stephen Nellis, Apple tells court Qualcomm chip licenses are invalid. REUTERS (2017/06/20) https://www.reuters.com/article/business/apple-tells-court-qualcomm-chip-licenses-are-invalid-idUSL1N1JH00S/ (Last visited 2025/10/17). 29. Stephen Nellis, Qualcomm accuses Apple of stealing its secrets to help Intel. REUTERS (2018/09/26) https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/qualcomm-accuses-apple-of-stealing-its-secrets-to-help-intel-idUSKCN1M6096/ (Last visited 2025/10/17). 30. Supantha Mukherjee, Ericsson settles patent dispute with Samsung, REUTERS (2021/05/07) https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/ericsson-settles-patent-dispute-with-samsung-2021-05-07/ (Last visited 2025/11/05). 31. Xi Jinping, Stepping up Intellectual Property Rights Protection to Stimulate Innovative Vigor for Fostering a New Development Dynamic, QIUSHI J. (Apr. 30, 2021), [https://perma.cc/AAH7-NTVN]. zh_TW
