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

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 從Patent Trolls議題看美台專利改革與解決之道
The Solution of Patent Trolls Issues in Light of Patent Reform and Cases in the U.S. and Taiwan
作者 李明峻
Lee, James
貢獻者 馮震宇
李明峻
Lee, James
關鍵詞 專利流氓
非專利實施者
專利竊佔
專利改革法案
投機式授權
禁制令
Patent Trolls
NPE(Non-Practicing Entities)
Patent Squatter
Patent Reform Act
opportunistic licensing
injunction
日期 2009
上傳時間 9-Apr-2010 15:10:34 (UTC+8)
摘要 近年來在美國有一種”新興產業”崛起，部份非專利權實施者NPE，專門尋找實際生產商品或提供服務的知名企業為對象，以提出專利侵權訴訟的方式，加上持有法院核發之禁制令，威脅被告以達到強迫授權或合解的目的，一般稱之為「Patent Trolls」。
按專利制度的二大政策目標，一為提供發明人發明的誘因，一為鼓勵發明人揭露其發明技術內容，而Patent Trolls投機性授權模式所造成的問題，是否會破壞專利法之立法目的，而降低企業投資創新研發的誘因，乃值得觀注且為有待解決的議題。
故本文之主要目的乃從美國與台灣之專利改革與實務判決，探討Patent Trolls之解決之道。
Recently there is a “new industry” in the U.S., some NPEs brought patent infringement suits against famous enterprises, which manufacture product or supply service and threatened with injunction, commonly called “Patent Trolls”.
Among the two policy objects of patent law, one is giving the inducement to invent, the other is encourage inventors to disclose their inventions. Whether the problems caused by the opportunistic licensing models of Patent Trolls would cause damage to the object of patent law and decrease the driving force to invent of the enterprises is an issue worth observing and solving.
Consequently, the object of this thesis is to discuss the solution of the Patent Trolls issues in light of Patent Reform and cases in the U.S. and Taiwan.
參考文獻 ※ 中文參考文獻
一、 專書
1. 陶龍生，轉捩點-美國專利訴訟實戰故事，聯合文學出版社，2008年。
2. 王承守，周延鵬，陳郁婷，鄧穎懋，跨國專利侵權訴訟之管理，2007 年9月。
3. 劉江彬，智慧財產法律與管理案例評析，華泰文化，2007年9月。
4. 王承守、鄧穎懋，美國專利訴訟攻防策略運用，元照出版有限公司， 2007年6月二版。
5. 楊崇森，專利法理論與應用，三民書局，2007年。
6. 張宇樞，美國專利訴訟實務，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
7. 陳翠華，專利申請程序實務及基準，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
8. 蔡明誠，專利法，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
9. 洪瑞章，專利侵害鑑定理論，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
10. 郭雨嵐，專利侵害處理策略-贏的策略與實務，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
11. 劉新發，專利行政救濟程序，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
12. 劉國讚，專利舉發實務，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
13. 詹炳耀，專利鑑價，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
14. 周延鵬，一堂課2000億，商訊文化，2006年12月。
15. 黃立，民法債編總論，2006年11月修正三版。
16. 劉江彬，智慧財產法律與管理案例評析，華泰文化，2006年9月。
17. 謝銘洋，羅炳榮，賴文平，葉大慧，林合民，兩岸智慧財產權實用手冊，中華保護智慧財產權協會，2006年6月。
18. 范建得、陳丁章、江國慶、宋皇志、錢逸霖，面對專利戰爭的新思維，新學林出版，2006年4月。
19. 周延鵬，虎與狐的智慧力－智慧資源規劃九把金鑰，天下文化出版社， 2006 年 3 月。
20. 劉尚志，王敏銓，張宇樞，林明儀，美台專利訴訟，元照出版社，2005年4月。
21. 經濟部，2005產業技術白皮書，經濟部技術處，2005年9月。
二、 期刊文獻
1. 吳欣玲，專利間接侵權規定之初探-兼論我國專利法修正草案之內容，智慧財產月刊130期，98年10月。
2. 陳麒文，專利審查高速公路，智慧財產月刊123期，98年3月。
3. 王銘勇，專利法損害賠償規範之分析與檢討，98年專利法修法研討會論文集。
4. 劉尚志、王思穎、王俊凱，以合理權利金為專利損害賠償之計算方法：美國法之案例分析，98年專利法修法研討會論文集，經濟部智慧局。
5. 顏吉承，美國KSR案判決對我國進步性審查之啟示，智慧財產權月刊，2007年9月。
6. 廖承威，美國Leapfrog案判決研析與習用技術組合之探討-KSR判決之後，智慧財產權月刊，2007年9月。
7. 王曉玟，智財反思 專利，創新的新敵人，天下文化2007年7月4日。
8. 洪志勳，美國專利法修法趨勢及現況，科技法律透析，2007年4月。
9. 古筱玫等，美國專利訴訟對台灣半導體產業營運的影響，經濟部跨領域科技管理研習班95年海外培訓成果發表會，2006年12月12日。
10. 馮震宇，知識經濟下的專利競賽-面臨專利訴訟與專利流氓的因應策略，能力雜誌，2006年10月。
11. 陳森豐，陳逸瑄，從Phillips v. AWH一案論申請專利範圍解釋之方法論，科技法律透析，2006年8月。
12. 葉雪美，淺談美國2005年專利改革法案及後續發展，智慧財產權月刊93期，2005年9月。
13. 高紅陽，不對稱信息經濟學研究現狀述評，當代經濟研究，2005年第10期。
14. 馮震宇，從美國司法實務看台灣專利案件之假處分救濟，月旦法學雜誌，2004年6月。
15. 伊芸，專利愈多籌碼愈多，天下文化，2001年9月。
三、 法律規範
1. 專利法修正草案，98年10月14日。
2. 專利法修正草案，98年8月05日。
3. 專利法修正草案，98年5月26日。
4. 智慧財產案件審理法細則，民國97年4月24日司法院公布。
5. 智慧財產法院組織法，民國九十六年三月二十八日公布。
6. 智慧財產案件審理法，民國96年3月28日公布。
7. 專利法施行細則，93年4月7日修正發布,93年7月1日施行。
8. 專利規費收費準則，93年6月30日修正發布,93年7月1日施行。
9. 專利侵害鑑定要點，93年9月27日修正發布。
10. 現行專利審查基準彙編。
11. 專利法，92年2月6日修正公布,93年7月1日施行。
四、 法院判例
1. 凹凸夏寶專利權損害賠償案，智慧財產法院九十七年度民專訴字第一號。
2. 凹凸美商茂力假處份再審案，最高法院九十五年度台抗字第三六四號。
3. 華碩凹凸假處分案，最高法院九十五年度台抗字第一五六號。
4. 凹凸韓商三星損害賠償案，台北地方法院九十五年度智字三十八號。
5. 華碩凹凸損害賠償案，台北地方法院九十三年度訴字第六二二號。
6. 凹凸碩頡損害賠償案，台北地方法院九十二年度智字第二十一號。
7. 凹凸美商茂力損害賠償案，台北地方法院九十二年度智字第十號。
※ 英文參考文獻
一、 專書
1. Dan Rayburn, Rebecca Kirk, Almudena Arcelus, Digital Meida Patents For Profit, Streaming Media Industry Sourcebook 2007.
2. Merrill Stephen A, Levin Richard C, Myers Mark B, A Patent System For The 21st Centry, Washington D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004.
3. Grubb Philip W, Patents For Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals And Biotechnology: Fundamentals Of Global Law, Practice And Strategy, Oxford University Press, 2004.
4. Cohen Wesley Marc, Merrill Stephen A, Patents In The Knowledge -Based Economy, National Academies Press, 2003.
二、期刊文獻
1. John R. Allison, Mark A. Lemley and Joshua Walker, Extreme Value or Trolls on Top? The Characteristics of the Most-Litigated Patents, 158 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2009.
2. John R. Allison, Abe Dunn & Ronald J. Mann, Frontiers Of Intellectual Property: Software Patents, Incumbents, and Entry, 85 Texas Law Review 1579, 2007.
3. John Bringardner, Patent Analytics Offer A New Tool For Evaluating A Company’s Intangible assects, But Will It Produce A Tangible Result For Inventors, 05 IP Law & Business 03, 2007.
4. Michael W. Carroll, Patents And Diversity In Innovation Policy Conference:Patent Injunctions And The Problem Of Uniformity Cost, 13 Michigan Telecommunications And Technology Law Review, 2007.
5. Jesse S. Chui, To What Extent Can Congress Change The Patent Right Without Effecting a Taking, 34 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 447, 2007.
6. David B. Connrad, Mining The Patent Thicket: The Supreme Court’s Rejection of the Automatic Injunction Rule in eBay v. MercExchange, 26 The Review of Litigation 119, 2007.
7. Gavin D. George, What Is Hiding In The Bushes? Ebay’s Effect On Holdout Behavior In Patent Thickets, 13 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 557, 2007.
8. Jennifer Kahaulelio Gregory, The Troll Next Door, 6 John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law 292, 2007.
9. Xenia Kobylarz, Extreme Makeover How Acacia Technologies Once Derided As A Patent Troll Grew Up And Got Respectable, 2 IP Law & Business 24, 2007.
10. Mark A. Lemley, Ten Things To Do About Patent Holdup Of Standards (And One Not To), Boston Colledge Law Review, 2007.
11. Mark A. Lemley, Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup And Royalty Stacking, 85 Texas Law Review 199, 2007.
12. Mark A. Lemley, Sould Patent Infringement Require Proof Of Copying, 105 Michigan Law Review 1525, 2007.
13. Russell E. Levine, Making It In US Patent Litigation, Lawyer Weekly, 2007.
14. Steven Levy, Changes In Patents May Be Pending-‘Patent Trolls’ Come Out Of The Woodwork After Companies Have Spent Billions On A Product, Newsweek 19, March 12 2007.
15. Cary Tope-Mackay, Taking A Page From The “Patent Troll Playbook, Leo Stoller Attempted To Invented A Similar Trademark-Based Business Model, 25 No.3 Intellectual Property Law Newsletter 1, 2007.
16. Gerard N. Magliocca, Blackberries And Barnyards: Patent Trolls And The Perils Of Innovation, 82 Notre Dame Law Review, 2007.
17. Maya Eckstein, 2007 Patent Reform Act could bring needed changes, The Daily Record of Rochester (Rochester, NY), May 30, 2007.
18. Maya Eckstein, Commentary: Patent Reform Act proposes new ways to grant and test patents, Virginia Lawyers Weekly, May 28, 2007.
19. Jeremy Mulder, The Affermath of eBay:Predicting When District Courts Will Grant Permanent Injunctions In Patent Cases, 22 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 67, 2007.
20. Damian Myers, Reeling In The Patent Troll：Was Ebay v. Mercexchange Enough, 14 Journal of Intellectual Property Law333, 2007.
21. Bill Mashek, Coalition to Push for Patent Reform Measures at Full House Judiciary Committee, PR Newswire US, May 16, 2007.
22. Carol M. Nielsen, Michael R. Samardzija, Compulsory Patent Licensing：Is It A Viable Solution In The United States, 13 Michigan Telecommunicaiton and Technology Law Review, 2007.
23. Raymond P. Niro, Who Is Really Undermining The Patent System-“Patent Trolls” Or Congress, John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 2007.
24. Yasuo Ohkuma, Miyuki Sahashi, Hui-Wen Hsueh, Joe Brennan, Patent Trolls In The US,Japan,Taiwan And Europe, Tokugikon, 2007.
25. Thomas J. Speiss III, Cary Tope-Mckay, Taking A Page From The “Patent Troll” Playbook, Leo Stoller Attempted To Invent A Similar Trademark-Based Business Model, 25 No.3 Intellectual Property Law Newsletter 1, Spring 2007.
26. Alisha Kay Taylor, What Does Forum Shopping In The Eastern Distric Of Texas Mean For Patent Reform, The John Marshall Review Of Intellectual Property Law, 2007.
27. James H. Wallace Jr., The Impact Of Recent Development On Your Practice The Debate Over “Patent Trolls”: Point/Counterpoint, 899 Practising Law Institute, 2007.
28. Junko Yoshida, Patent Troll Casts Shadow Over Cable, Electronic Engineering Times, May 14, 2007.
29. Brian Akers and Andrew E. Rawlins, United States: Top Intellectual Properties Issues That Will Affect The Medical Device Industry In 2007, Mondaq Business Briefing, December 20, 2006.
30. Ryan Eddings, CONSUMER NEWS: Trolls and Titans Take Fight to Top Court, 18 Loyola Consumer Law Review 503,2006.
31. James R. Farrand, Territoriality And Incentives Under The Patent Laws: Overreaching Harms U.S. Economic And Technological Interests, 21 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1215, 2006.
32. Leslie T. Grab, Equitable Concerns Of Ebay v. Mercexchange: Did The Supreme Court Successfully Balance Patent Protection Against Patent Trolls, 2006.
33. Jeremiah S. Helm, Why Pharmaceutical Firms Support Patent Trolls: The Disparate Impact Of Ebay v. Mercexchange On Innovation, 13 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 331, 2006.
34. Dean Kamen, Capitol Hill Hearing Testimoney, CQ Congressional Testimony, 2006.
35. Jason Kirby, Patent troll Or Producer?: The Evolution Of Intellectual Property, National Post`s Financial Post & FP Investing, January 14, 2006.
36. Cristopher L. Logan, Patent Reform 2005:HR 2795 And The Road To Post-Grand Oppositions, UMKC Law Review, 2006.
37. John F. Luman III , Cristopher L. Dodson, No Longer A Myth, The Emergence Of The Patent Troll:Shifting Innovation, Inceasing Litigation, And Extorting Billions, 18 Intellectual Property Technology Law Journal 5, 2006.
38. Victoria E. Luxardo, Comment: Towards A Solution To The Problem Of Illegitimate Patent Enforcement Practices In The United States: An Equitbale Affirmativ Deffense Of “Fair Use” In Patent, 20 Emory International Law Review 791, 2006.
39. James F. McDonough III, The Myth Of The Patent Troll：An Alternative View Of The Function Of Patent Dealeers In An Idea Economy, 56 Emory Law Journal 189, 2006.
40. J.P. Mello, Technology Licensing And Patent Trolls, 12 Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, 2006.
41. Judy Newman, Innovators Fear The `Patent Trolls`; A Madison Company Is In An Intellectual Property Fight Emblematic Of Today`s Knowledge Economy, 2006.
42. Adele Nicholas, Patent Trolls Set Their Sights On The Pharmaceutical Industry, Inside Counsel, May 2006.
43. Joe Nocera, Tired of Trolls, A Feisty Chief Fights Back, The New York Times, September 16, 2006.
44. Cris Nuttall, Americas And International Economy, Financial Times UK, 2006.
45. Alexander Poltorak, On ‘Patent Troll’ And Injunctive Relief, No12 Patent Strategy & Management 3, 2006.
46. Robert H. Resis Esq., History Of The Patent Troll And Lessons Learned, 17 Intellectual Property Ligigation 2, 2006.
47. Jeffrey Silva, Patent reform gathers support, RCR Wireless News, May 29, 2006.
48. Steve Rubin, Patent Trolls Foster Innovation,Marketplace Liquidity, According To WolfBlock’s Steve Rubin, PR Newswire Europe, 2006.
49. Steve Seidenberg, Troll Control, The Supreme Court’s Ebay Decision Sets Back ‘Patent Trolls’ Or American Innovation,Depending Upon Which Sdie You’re On, 92 ABA Journal 51, 2006.
50. Joseph R. Sozzani, Case Comment: Patent Law: Redefining Equitable Injunctions: MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 11 Journal of Technology Law & Policy 341, 2006.
51. Mitchell G. Stockwell, Implementing eBay: New Problems In Guiding Judicial Discretion And Enforcing Patent Rights, 88 Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 747, 2006.
52. Robert E. Thomas, Vanquishing Copyright Pirates And Patent Trolls: The Divergent Evolution of Copyright and Patent Laws, 43 American Business Law Journal 689, 2006.
53. Patti Waldmeir, Get It Now From Ebay, Hostage To The Patent Trolls, Financial Times, March 15 2006.
54. Tim Wu, Weapons of Business Destruction, Slate Magazine, February 6, 2006.
55. David G. Barker, Troll Or No Troll? Policing Patent Usage With An Open Post-Grnat Review, 2005 Duke Law & Technology Review 9, 2005.
56. Jeremish Chan, Matthew Fawcett, Footsteps Of The Patent Troll, 10 Intellectual Property Law Bulletin 1, 2005.
57. Bruce Einhom et al., Why Taiwan Matters, Business Week, May 16 2005.
58. James Feldman, Ampex Is No ‘Patent Troll’, BusinessWeek, May 16 2005.
59. Elizabeth D. Ferrill, Patent Investment Trusts：Let’s Build a PIT to Catch The Patent Trolls, 6 North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 367, 2005.
60. Jennifer H. Hokel, Patent Trolls: Advising Businesses In A Patent Assertion Climate, Missouri Lawyers Weekly, October 15 2005.
61. Morag Macdonald, IP, IT AND TELECOMS: Beware of the troll, The Lawyer, September 26, 2005.
62. Ronald J. Mann, Do Patents Facilitate Financing In The Software Industry, 83 Texas Law Review 961, 2005.
63. Randall Stross, Why Bill Gates Wants 3,000 New Patents, The New York Times, July 31 2005.
64. Steve Seidenberg, Patent Trolls Go Mainstream With Ocean Tomo Fund, Corporate Legal Times, November 2005.
65. Oren Bracha, How Patents Become Rights And Why We Should Care, 38 Loy. L.A.L. Rev. 177, 2004.
66. Mark A. Lemley, Ex Ante versus Ex Post Justifications For Intellectual Property, 71 U.CHI. Law Review 129, 2004.
67. Jeff A. Ronspies , Comment, Does David Need A New Sling? Small Enties Face A Costly Barrier To Patent Protection, 4 Journal Of John Marshall Review Intellectual Property Law 184, 2004.
68. Dan L Burk, Mark A. Lemley, Plicy Levers in Patent Law, 89 Virginia. Law Review 1575, 2003.
69. Michael J. Meurer, Controlling Opportunistic And Anti-Competitive Intellectual Property Litigation , 44 B.C. Law Review, 509, 512, 2003.
70. Lisa M Brownlee, Part III Valuation Chapter 12 Valuation Of Intellectual Property Assets, Intellectual Property Due Dilligence In Corporate Transactions, May 2002.
71. Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property Rights And Standradard-Setting Organization, 90 California Law Review 1889,1893, 2002.
72. Kimberly A. Moore, Francesco Parisi, Rethinking Forum Shopping In Cyberspace, 77 Chicago Kent Law Review 1325, 2002.
73. Mark A. Lemley, Rationale Ignorance At The Patent Office, 95 New York University Law Review 1495, 2001.
三、法院判例
1. Furnace Brook LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc., 230 Fed. Appx. 984, 2007.
2. In re Seagate Tech., L.L.C., 497 F.3d. 1360, 1365, 2007.
3. InternetAd System LLC v. Opodo Ltd., 481 F. Supp.2d.596, 2007.
4. Israel Bio Engineering Project v. Amgen Inc., 127 S.Ct. 2994, 2007.
5. Israel Bio Engineering Project v. Amgen Inc., 475 F.3d.1256, 2007.
6. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 2007.
7. MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech Inc., 127 S.Ct. 764, 2007.
8. Rembrandt Technologies L.P. v. Comcast Corp. et.al., F. Supp.2d., 2007.
9. Rembrandt Technologies L.P. v. Comcast Corp. et.al., 2007 WL470631.
10. Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Company, and Altek Corp., 461 F.Supp.2d 232, 2006.
11. eBay Inc. v. Mercexchange LLC., 126 S.Ct. 1837, 2006.
12. Paice LLC. v. Toyota Motor Corp., US. Dist. Lexis 61600, 2006.
13. Visto Corp. v. Sproqit Technologies, Inc., 413 F.Supp.2d 1073, 2006.
14. Z4 Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d. 437, 2006.
15. Acacia Media Technologies Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, et al., 405 F.Supp.2d 1127, 2005.
16. Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 339 F.3d. 1325, 2005.
17. Israel Bio Engineering Project v. Amgen Inc., 401 F.3d.1299, 2005.
18. Mercexchange LLC. v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d. 1323, 2005.
19. NTP Inc. v. Research In Motion Ltd., 418 F.3d. 1282, 1287, 2005.
20. Overstock.com, Inc. v. Furnace Brook, LLC, 420 F.Supp.2d.1217, 2005.
21. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d. 1303, 2005.
22. Teleflex Inc. v. KSR International Co., Fed. Appx.282, 2005.
23. Symbol Technologies v. Lemelson 301 F. Supp. 2d. 1147, 2004.
24. Rambus v. Infineon AG., 318 F.3d. 1081, 2003.
25. Silent Drive Inc. v. Strong Industries Inc., 326 F.3d. 1194, 2003.
26. Texas Digital System Inc. v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d. 1193, 2002.
27. Union carbide Chemicals & Plastics Technology Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 308 F.3d. 1167, 2002.
28. Red Wing Shoe Company Inc. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt Inc., 148 F.3d. 1355, 1998.
29. Ford Motor Co. v. Lemelson, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1707, 1711, 1997.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法律科際整合研究所
94652012
98
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094652012
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 馮震宇zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 李明峻zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lee, Jamesen_US
dc.creator (作者) 李明峻zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Lee, Jamesen_US
dc.date (日期) 2009en_US
dc.date.accessioned 9-Apr-2010 15:10:34 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 9-Apr-2010 15:10:34 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 9-Apr-2010 15:10:34 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0094652012en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/38726-
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) 94652012zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 98zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 近年來在美國有一種”新興產業”崛起，部份非專利權實施者NPE，專門尋找實際生產商品或提供服務的知名企業為對象，以提出專利侵權訴訟的方式，加上持有法院核發之禁制令，威脅被告以達到強迫授權或合解的目的，一般稱之為「Patent Trolls」。
按專利制度的二大政策目標，一為提供發明人發明的誘因，一為鼓勵發明人揭露其發明技術內容，而Patent Trolls投機性授權模式所造成的問題，是否會破壞專利法之立法目的，而降低企業投資創新研發的誘因，乃值得觀注且為有待解決的議題。
故本文之主要目的乃從美國與台灣之專利改革與實務判決，探討Patent Trolls之解決之道。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Recently there is a “new industry” in the U.S., some NPEs brought patent infringement suits against famous enterprises, which manufacture product or supply service and threatened with injunction, commonly called “Patent Trolls”.
Among the two policy objects of patent law, one is giving the inducement to invent, the other is encourage inventors to disclose their inventions. Whether the problems caused by the opportunistic licensing models of Patent Trolls would cause damage to the object of patent law and decrease the driving force to invent of the enterprises is an issue worth observing and solving.
Consequently, the object of this thesis is to discuss the solution of the Patent Trolls issues in light of Patent Reform and cases in the U.S. and Taiwan.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章、 緒論………………………………………………11
第一節、 研究的目的及方法………………………………13
第二節、 文獻探討…………………………………………15
第二章、 美國專利制度與Patent Trolls的出現……… 17
第一節、 美國專利政策的改變……………………………17
一、美國專利政策的改變……………………………………………17
二、CAFC成立與判例法的改變…………………………………… 18
三、美國司法部對專利態度的轉變……………………………… 19
第二節、 對企業專利策略的影響…………………………21
一、專利申請數量的增加……………………………………………21
二、專利商品化的多樣化……………………………………………21
第三節、 美國專利制度之相關問題………………………23
第四節、 Patent Trolls問題的定義與商業模式……… 25
第五節、 Patent Trolls問題對不同產業的影響與爭議…28
第三章、 Patent Trolls之相關判決………………………32
第一節、 美國有關Patent Trolls的判決…………………32
一、最高法院的判決(Supreme Court)…………………………… 32
(一)、Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange LLC. ……………………… 32
二、聯邦巡迴上訴法院的判決(CAFC)…………………………… 37
(一)、Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. ……… 37
(二)、NTP Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd. …………………41
(三)、Overstock.com, Inc., v. Furnace Brook, LLC. ……… 44
三、地方法院的判決(District Court)…………………………… 46
(一)、z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. ……………46
(二)、Paice L.L.C. v. Toyota Motor Corp. ……………………48
(三)、TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Communication Corp. ……… 49
第二節、 其它國家有關Patent Trolls的判決……………51
一、 歐洲與日本的判決(BTG , ADC)………………………… 51
二、台灣的判決(O2 Micro美商凹凸科技)………………… 51
(一)、凹凸對茂力-最高法院95年度台抗字第364號…………51
(二)、凹凸對華碩-最高法院95年度台抗字第156號…………55
第三節、影響企業擬定對付Patent Trolls訴訟策略的判決 58
一、KSR International Co., v. Teleflex Inc. et al. 58
二、MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech…………………………64
三、In-re Seagate…………………………………………… 66
第四章、 美國專利改革與Patent Trolls………… 70
第一節、 美國聯邦貿易委員會FTC之建議內容…… 71
第二節、 美國國家科學院國家研究委員會NAS之建議內容 72
第三節、 美國專利改革法案(Patent Reform Act)之內容 73
一、The Patent Reform Act of 2005……………………………… 73
二、The Patent Depend on Quality Act 2006………………… 76
三、The Patent Reform Act of 2007……………………………… 78
四、The Patent Reform Act of 2008…………………………79
五、The Patent Reform Act of 2009…………………………79
第四節、 其它機構與團體之建議內容……………… 81
第五章、 台灣法律相關規定與Patent Trolls………82
第一節、 專利法規定與最新修正草案內容………… 82
第二節、 專利審查基準及侵害鑑定要點之規定…… 87
第三節、 民事訴訟法與智慧財產案件審理法之相關規定 89
第六章、 Patent Trolls議題的解決之道…………………94
第一節、 事前的防範措施………………………………… 94
一、司法機關之法律面………………………………………94
(一)、Patent Trolls取得目標專利前之防範措施……… 94
(二)、Patent Trolls取得目標專利後之防範措施……… 98
二、公司企業之管理面…………………………………… 101
第二節、 法院裁判的衡平作法………………… 103
第三節、 事後的救濟措施……………………… 111
第七章、 研究結論與建議……………………… 112
參考文獻…………………………………………………… 114		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1371927 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094652012en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 專利流氓zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 非專利實施者zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 專利竊佔zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 專利改革法案zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 投機式授權zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 禁制令zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Patent Trollsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) NPE(Non-Practicing Entities)en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Patent Squatteren_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Patent Reform Acten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) opportunistic licensingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) injunctionen_US
dc.title (題名) 從Patent Trolls議題看美台專利改革與解決之道zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Solution of Patent Trolls Issues in Light of Patent Reform and Cases in the U.S. and Taiwanen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) ※ 中文參考文獻zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、 專書zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. 陶龍生，轉捩點-美國專利訴訟實戰故事，聯合文學出版社，2008年。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. 王承守，周延鵬，陳郁婷，鄧穎懋，跨國專利侵權訴訟之管理，2007 年9月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 3. 劉江彬，智慧財產法律與管理案例評析，華泰文化，2007年9月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 4. 王承守、鄧穎懋，美國專利訴訟攻防策略運用，元照出版有限公司， 2007年6月二版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 5. 楊崇森，專利法理論與應用，三民書局，2007年。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 6. 張宇樞，美國專利訴訟實務，經濟部智慧局，2007年。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 7. 陳翠華，專利申請程序實務及基準，經濟部智慧局，2007年。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 8. 蔡明誠，專利法，經濟部智慧局，2007年。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 9. 洪瑞章，專利侵害鑑定理論，經濟部智慧局，2007年。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 10. 郭雨嵐，專利侵害處理策略-贏的策略與實務，經濟部智慧局，2007年。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 11. 劉新發，專利行政救濟程序，經濟部智慧局，2007年。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 12. 劉國讚，專利舉發實務，經濟部智慧局，2007年。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 13. 詹炳耀，專利鑑價，經濟部智慧局，2007年。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 14. 周延鵬，一堂課2000億，商訊文化，2006年12月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 15. 黃立，民法債編總論，2006年11月修正三版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 16. 劉江彬，智慧財產法律與管理案例評析，華泰文化，2006年9月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 17. 謝銘洋，羅炳榮，賴文平，葉大慧，林合民，兩岸智慧財產權實用手冊，中華保護智慧財產權協會，2006年6月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 18. 范建得、陳丁章、江國慶、宋皇志、錢逸霖，面對專利戰爭的新思維，新學林出版，2006年4月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 19. 周延鵬，虎與狐的智慧力－智慧資源規劃九把金鑰，天下文化出版社， 2006 年 3 月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 20. 劉尚志，王敏銓，張宇樞，林明儀，美台專利訴訟，元照出版社，2005年4月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 21. 經濟部，2005產業技術白皮書，經濟部技術處，2005年9月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 二、 期刊文獻zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. 吳欣玲，專利間接侵權規定之初探-兼論我國專利法修正草案之內容，智慧財產月刊130期，98年10月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. 陳麒文，專利審查高速公路，智慧財產月刊123期，98年3月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 3. 王銘勇，專利法損害賠償規範之分析與檢討，98年專利法修法研討會論文集。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 4. 劉尚志、王思穎、王俊凱，以合理權利金為專利損害賠償之計算方法：美國法之案例分析，98年專利法修法研討會論文集，經濟部智慧局。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 5. 顏吉承，美國KSR案判決對我國進步性審查之啟示，智慧財產權月刊，2007年9月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 6. 廖承威，美國Leapfrog案判決研析與習用技術組合之探討-KSR判決之後，智慧財產權月刊，2007年9月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 7. 王曉玟，智財反思 專利，創新的新敵人，天下文化2007年7月4日。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 8. 洪志勳，美國專利法修法趨勢及現況，科技法律透析，2007年4月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 9. 古筱玫等，美國專利訴訟對台灣半導體產業營運的影響，經濟部跨領域科技管理研習班95年海外培訓成果發表會，2006年12月12日。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 10. 馮震宇，知識經濟下的專利競賽-面臨專利訴訟與專利流氓的因應策略，能力雜誌，2006年10月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 11. 陳森豐，陳逸瑄，從Phillips v. AWH一案論申請專利範圍解釋之方法論，科技法律透析，2006年8月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 12. 葉雪美，淺談美國2005年專利改革法案及後續發展，智慧財產權月刊93期，2005年9月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 13. 高紅陽，不對稱信息經濟學研究現狀述評，當代經濟研究，2005年第10期。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 14. 馮震宇，從美國司法實務看台灣專利案件之假處分救濟，月旦法學雜誌，2004年6月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 15. 伊芸，專利愈多籌碼愈多，天下文化，2001年9月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 三、 法律規範zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. 專利法修正草案，98年10月14日。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. 專利法修正草案，98年8月05日。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 3. 專利法修正草案，98年5月26日。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 4. 智慧財產案件審理法細則，民國97年4月24日司法院公布。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 5. 智慧財產法院組織法，民國九十六年三月二十八日公布。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 6. 智慧財產案件審理法，民國96年3月28日公布。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 7. 專利法施行細則，93年4月7日修正發布,93年7月1日施行。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 8. 專利規費收費準則，93年6月30日修正發布,93年7月1日施行。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 9. 專利侵害鑑定要點，93年9月27日修正發布。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 10. 現行專利審查基準彙編。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 11. 專利法，92年2月6日修正公布,93年7月1日施行。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 四、 法院判例zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. 凹凸夏寶專利權損害賠償案，智慧財產法院九十七年度民專訴字第一號。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. 凹凸美商茂力假處份再審案，最高法院九十五年度台抗字第三六四號。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 3. 華碩凹凸假處分案，最高法院九十五年度台抗字第一五六號。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 4. 凹凸韓商三星損害賠償案，台北地方法院九十五年度智字三十八號。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 5. 華碩凹凸損害賠償案，台北地方法院九十三年度訴字第六二二號。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 6. 凹凸碩頡損害賠償案，台北地方法院九十二年度智字第二十一號。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 7. 凹凸美商茂力損害賠償案，台北地方法院九十二年度智字第十號。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) ※ 英文參考文獻zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、 專書zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. Dan Rayburn, Rebecca Kirk, Almudena Arcelus, Digital Meida Patents For Profit, Streaming Media Industry Sourcebook 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. Merrill Stephen A, Levin Richard C, Myers Mark B, A Patent System For The 21st Centry, Washington D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 3. Grubb Philip W, Patents For Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals And Biotechnology: Fundamentals Of Global Law, Practice And Strategy, Oxford University Press, 2004.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 4. Cohen Wesley Marc, Merrill Stephen A, Patents In The Knowledge -Based Economy, National Academies Press, 2003.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 二、期刊文獻zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. John R. Allison, Mark A. Lemley and Joshua Walker, Extreme Value or Trolls on Top? The Characteristics of the Most-Litigated Patents, 158 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2009.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. John R. Allison, Abe Dunn & Ronald J. Mann, Frontiers Of Intellectual Property: Software Patents, Incumbents, and Entry, 85 Texas Law Review 1579, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 3. John Bringardner, Patent Analytics Offer A New Tool For Evaluating A Company’s Intangible assects, But Will It Produce A Tangible Result For Inventors, 05 IP Law & Business 03, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 4. Michael W. Carroll, Patents And Diversity In Innovation Policy Conference:Patent Injunctions And The Problem Of Uniformity Cost, 13 Michigan Telecommunications And Technology Law Review, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 5. Jesse S. Chui, To What Extent Can Congress Change The Patent Right Without Effecting a Taking, 34 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 447, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 6. David B. Connrad, Mining The Patent Thicket: The Supreme Court’s Rejection of the Automatic Injunction Rule in eBay v. MercExchange, 26 The Review of Litigation 119, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 7. Gavin D. George, What Is Hiding In The Bushes? Ebay’s Effect On Holdout Behavior In Patent Thickets, 13 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 557, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 8. Jennifer Kahaulelio Gregory, The Troll Next Door, 6 John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law 292, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 9. Xenia Kobylarz, Extreme Makeover How Acacia Technologies Once Derided As A Patent Troll Grew Up And Got Respectable, 2 IP Law & Business 24, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 10. Mark A. Lemley, Ten Things To Do About Patent Holdup Of Standards (And One Not To), Boston Colledge Law Review, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 11. Mark A. Lemley, Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup And Royalty Stacking, 85 Texas Law Review 199, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 12. Mark A. Lemley, Sould Patent Infringement Require Proof Of Copying, 105 Michigan Law Review 1525, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 13. Russell E. Levine, Making It In US Patent Litigation, Lawyer Weekly, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 14. Steven Levy, Changes In Patents May Be Pending-‘Patent Trolls’ Come Out Of The Woodwork After Companies Have Spent Billions On A Product, Newsweek 19, March 12 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 15. Cary Tope-Mackay, Taking A Page From The “Patent Troll Playbook, Leo Stoller Attempted To Invented A Similar Trademark-Based Business Model, 25 No.3 Intellectual Property Law Newsletter 1, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 16. Gerard N. Magliocca, Blackberries And Barnyards: Patent Trolls And The Perils Of Innovation, 82 Notre Dame Law Review, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 17. Maya Eckstein, 2007 Patent Reform Act could bring needed changes, The Daily Record of Rochester (Rochester, NY), May 30, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 18. Maya Eckstein, Commentary: Patent Reform Act proposes new ways to grant and test patents, Virginia Lawyers Weekly, May 28, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 19. Jeremy Mulder, The Affermath of eBay:Predicting When District Courts Will Grant Permanent Injunctions In Patent Cases, 22 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 67, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 20. Damian Myers, Reeling In The Patent Troll：Was Ebay v. Mercexchange Enough, 14 Journal of Intellectual Property Law333, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 21. Bill Mashek, Coalition to Push for Patent Reform Measures at Full House Judiciary Committee, PR Newswire US, May 16, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 22. Carol M. Nielsen, Michael R. Samardzija, Compulsory Patent Licensing：Is It A Viable Solution In The United States, 13 Michigan Telecommunicaiton and Technology Law Review, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 23. Raymond P. Niro, Who Is Really Undermining The Patent System-“Patent Trolls” Or Congress, John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 24. Yasuo Ohkuma, Miyuki Sahashi, Hui-Wen Hsueh, Joe Brennan, Patent Trolls In The US,Japan,Taiwan And Europe, Tokugikon, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 25. Thomas J. Speiss III, Cary Tope-Mckay, Taking A Page From The “Patent Troll” Playbook, Leo Stoller Attempted To Invent A Similar Trademark-Based Business Model, 25 No.3 Intellectual Property Law Newsletter 1, Spring 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 26. Alisha Kay Taylor, What Does Forum Shopping In The Eastern Distric Of Texas Mean For Patent Reform, The John Marshall Review Of Intellectual Property Law, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 27. James H. Wallace Jr., The Impact Of Recent Development On Your Practice The Debate Over “Patent Trolls”: Point/Counterpoint, 899 Practising Law Institute, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 28. Junko Yoshida, Patent Troll Casts Shadow Over Cable, Electronic Engineering Times, May 14, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 29. Brian Akers and Andrew E. Rawlins, United States: Top Intellectual Properties Issues That Will Affect The Medical Device Industry In 2007, Mondaq Business Briefing, December 20, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 30. Ryan Eddings, CONSUMER NEWS: Trolls and Titans Take Fight to Top Court, 18 Loyola Consumer Law Review 503,2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 31. James R. Farrand, Territoriality And Incentives Under The Patent Laws: Overreaching Harms U.S. Economic And Technological Interests, 21 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1215, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 32. Leslie T. Grab, Equitable Concerns Of Ebay v. Mercexchange: Did The Supreme Court Successfully Balance Patent Protection Against Patent Trolls, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 33. Jeremiah S. Helm, Why Pharmaceutical Firms Support Patent Trolls: The Disparate Impact Of Ebay v. Mercexchange On Innovation, 13 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 331, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 34. Dean Kamen, Capitol Hill Hearing Testimoney, CQ Congressional Testimony, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 35. Jason Kirby, Patent troll Or Producer?: The Evolution Of Intellectual Property, National Post`s Financial Post & FP Investing, January 14, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 36. Cristopher L. Logan, Patent Reform 2005:HR 2795 And The Road To Post-Grand Oppositions, UMKC Law Review, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 37. John F. Luman III , Cristopher L. Dodson, No Longer A Myth, The Emergence Of The Patent Troll:Shifting Innovation, Inceasing Litigation, And Extorting Billions, 18 Intellectual Property Technology Law Journal 5, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 38. Victoria E. Luxardo, Comment: Towards A Solution To The Problem Of Illegitimate Patent Enforcement Practices In The United States: An Equitbale Affirmativ Deffense Of “Fair Use” In Patent, 20 Emory International Law Review 791, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 39. James F. McDonough III, The Myth Of The Patent Troll：An Alternative View Of The Function Of Patent Dealeers In An Idea Economy, 56 Emory Law Journal 189, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 40. J.P. Mello, Technology Licensing And Patent Trolls, 12 Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 41. Judy Newman, Innovators Fear The `Patent Trolls`; A Madison Company Is In An Intellectual Property Fight Emblematic Of Today`s Knowledge Economy, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 42. Adele Nicholas, Patent Trolls Set Their Sights On The Pharmaceutical Industry, Inside Counsel, May 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 43. Joe Nocera, Tired of Trolls, A Feisty Chief Fights Back, The New York Times, September 16, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 44. Cris Nuttall, Americas And International Economy, Financial Times UK, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 45. Alexander Poltorak, On ‘Patent Troll’ And Injunctive Relief, No12 Patent Strategy & Management 3, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 46. Robert H. Resis Esq., History Of The Patent Troll And Lessons Learned, 17 Intellectual Property Ligigation 2, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 47. Jeffrey Silva, Patent reform gathers support, RCR Wireless News, May 29, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 48. Steve Rubin, Patent Trolls Foster Innovation,Marketplace Liquidity, According To WolfBlock’s Steve Rubin, PR Newswire Europe, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 49. Steve Seidenberg, Troll Control, The Supreme Court’s Ebay Decision Sets Back ‘Patent Trolls’ Or American Innovation,Depending Upon Which Sdie You’re On, 92 ABA Journal 51, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 50. Joseph R. Sozzani, Case Comment: Patent Law: Redefining Equitable Injunctions: MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 11 Journal of Technology Law & Policy 341, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 51. Mitchell G. Stockwell, Implementing eBay: New Problems In Guiding Judicial Discretion And Enforcing Patent Rights, 88 Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 747, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 52. Robert E. Thomas, Vanquishing Copyright Pirates And Patent Trolls: The Divergent Evolution of Copyright and Patent Laws, 43 American Business Law Journal 689, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 53. Patti Waldmeir, Get It Now From Ebay, Hostage To The Patent Trolls, Financial Times, March 15 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 54. Tim Wu, Weapons of Business Destruction, Slate Magazine, February 6, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 55. David G. Barker, Troll Or No Troll? Policing Patent Usage With An Open Post-Grnat Review, 2005 Duke Law & Technology Review 9, 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 56. Jeremish Chan, Matthew Fawcett, Footsteps Of The Patent Troll, 10 Intellectual Property Law Bulletin 1, 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 57. Bruce Einhom et al., Why Taiwan Matters, Business Week, May 16 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 58. James Feldman, Ampex Is No ‘Patent Troll’, BusinessWeek, May 16 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 59. Elizabeth D. Ferrill, Patent Investment Trusts：Let’s Build a PIT to Catch The Patent Trolls, 6 North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 367, 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 60. Jennifer H. Hokel, Patent Trolls: Advising Businesses In A Patent Assertion Climate, Missouri Lawyers Weekly, October 15 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 61. Morag Macdonald, IP, IT AND TELECOMS: Beware of the troll, The Lawyer, September 26, 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 62. Ronald J. Mann, Do Patents Facilitate Financing In The Software Industry, 83 Texas Law Review 961, 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 63. Randall Stross, Why Bill Gates Wants 3,000 New Patents, The New York Times, July 31 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 64. Steve Seidenberg, Patent Trolls Go Mainstream With Ocean Tomo Fund, Corporate Legal Times, November 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 65. Oren Bracha, How Patents Become Rights And Why We Should Care, 38 Loy. L.A.L. Rev. 177, 2004.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 66. Mark A. Lemley, Ex Ante versus Ex Post Justifications For Intellectual Property, 71 U.CHI. Law Review 129, 2004.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 67. Jeff A. Ronspies , Comment, Does David Need A New Sling? Small Enties Face A Costly Barrier To Patent Protection, 4 Journal Of John Marshall Review Intellectual Property Law 184, 2004.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 68. Dan L Burk, Mark A. Lemley, Plicy Levers in Patent Law, 89 Virginia. Law Review 1575, 2003.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 69. Michael J. Meurer, Controlling Opportunistic And Anti-Competitive Intellectual Property Litigation , 44 B.C. Law Review, 509, 512, 2003.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 70. Lisa M Brownlee, Part III Valuation Chapter 12 Valuation Of Intellectual Property Assets, Intellectual Property Due Dilligence In Corporate Transactions, May 2002.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 71. Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property Rights And Standradard-Setting Organization, 90 California Law Review 1889,1893, 2002.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 72. Kimberly A. Moore, Francesco Parisi, Rethinking Forum Shopping In Cyberspace, 77 Chicago Kent Law Review 1325, 2002.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 73. Mark A. Lemley, Rationale Ignorance At The Patent Office, 95 New York University Law Review 1495, 2001.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 三、法院判例zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. Furnace Brook LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc., 230 Fed. Appx. 984, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. In re Seagate Tech., L.L.C., 497 F.3d. 1360, 1365, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 3. InternetAd System LLC v. Opodo Ltd., 481 F. Supp.2d.596, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 4. Israel Bio Engineering Project v. Amgen Inc., 127 S.Ct. 2994, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 5. Israel Bio Engineering Project v. Amgen Inc., 475 F.3d.1256, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 6. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 7. MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech Inc., 127 S.Ct. 764, 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 8. Rembrandt Technologies L.P. v. Comcast Corp. et.al., F. Supp.2d., 2007.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 9. Rembrandt Technologies L.P. v. Comcast Corp. et.al., 2007 WL470631.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 10. Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Company, and Altek Corp., 461 F.Supp.2d 232, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 11. eBay Inc. v. Mercexchange LLC., 126 S.Ct. 1837, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 12. Paice LLC. v. Toyota Motor Corp., US. Dist. Lexis 61600, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 13. Visto Corp. v. Sproqit Technologies, Inc., 413 F.Supp.2d 1073, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 14. Z4 Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d. 437, 2006.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 15. Acacia Media Technologies Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, et al., 405 F.Supp.2d 1127, 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 16. Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 339 F.3d. 1325, 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 17. Israel Bio Engineering Project v. Amgen Inc., 401 F.3d.1299, 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 18. Mercexchange LLC. v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d. 1323, 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 19. NTP Inc. v. Research In Motion Ltd., 418 F.3d. 1282, 1287, 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 20. Overstock.com, Inc. v. Furnace Brook, LLC, 420 F.Supp.2d.1217, 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 21. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d. 1303, 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 22. Teleflex Inc. v. KSR International Co., Fed. Appx.282, 2005.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 23. Symbol Technologies v. Lemelson 301 F. Supp. 2d. 1147, 2004.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 24. Rambus v. Infineon AG., 318 F.3d. 1081, 2003.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 25. Silent Drive Inc. v. Strong Industries Inc., 326 F.3d. 1194, 2003.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 26. Texas Digital System Inc. v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d. 1193, 2002.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 27. Union carbide Chemicals & Plastics Technology Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 308 F.3d. 1167, 2002.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 28. Red Wing Shoe Company Inc. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt Inc., 148 F.3d. 1355, 1998.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 29. Ford Motor Co. v. Lemelson, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1707, 1711, 1997.zh_TW