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

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 論訴訟費用移轉變革對非專利實施實體之影響
The Impact of Fee-Shifting Changes on Non-Practicing Entities
作者 郭怡萱
Kuo, I Hsuan
貢獻者 馮震宇
郭怡萱
Kuo, I Hsuan
關鍵詞 非專利實施實體
美國專利法第285條
訴訟費用之移轉
non-practicing entities
35 U.S.C. Section 285
fee-shifting
日期 2014
上傳時間 3-Feb-2015 10:34:50 (UTC+8)
摘要 　　美國專利制度為鼓勵創新發明、促進技術進步，賦予權利人有限期間之專利權，以排除他人未經同意而為製造、使用、銷售、銷售之要約、或進口。由於專利權人並未被要求積極實施專利權，市場上因而興起所謂非專利實施實體（Non-Practicing Entity）之商業模式，該等實體以訴訟威脅企業付出為數龐大的權利金或損害賠償金額，達成極大化專利投資報酬之目的。然而，非專利實施實體大量興訟的結果，不僅導致越來越多的企業疲於應付訴訟而影響正常營運，更阻礙技術與產業之創新、增加社會成本，對美國經濟體系產生嚴重之變化與影響。
　　2011年的美國發明法案雖然對專利制度做出大幅修正，提供許多法律機制回應非專利實施實體之商業模式，非專利實施實體卻仍持續利用其訴訟成本之優勢從專利制度中獲得超額之利益。是故，美國專利法第285條關於訴訟費用移轉之機制逐漸受到重視，該條文賦予法院於例外情況下，得裁定由敗訴當事人負擔勝訴當事人合理之律師費用。2014年5月，美國聯邦最高法院改變過去從嚴適用費用移轉規定之訴訟實務，於Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness Inc.判決放寬美國專利法第285條之例外情況判斷標準，賦予地方法院更多裁量權以認定事實，並於Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems判決確立美國專利法第285條之實行範圍，賦予前述事實認定更多尊重。
　　有鑑於費用移轉之機制已具體落實於司法判決之中，未來被控侵權人面臨專利侵權訴訟的威脅時，將有更大的談判籌碼與空間，因此非專利實施實體濫用訴訟之情形勢必產生變化。為了解訴訟費用移轉之機制變革對非專利實施實體訴訟之影響，以提供本國專利實施公司面對非專利實施實體訴訟騷擾時之參考，本文將從分析非專利實施實體之興起原因與商業模式著手，觀察非專利實施實體之訴訟情況與其衍生之爭議所在，並就美國聯邦最高法院之Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness Inc.與Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems兩件判決進行評析，比較訴訟費用移轉變革前後之相關訴訟實務，以及其對非專利實施實體濫用訴訟之影響。
　　To encourage innovations and facilitate technology developments, the U.S. patent system grants an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time to exclude others from making, using, offering to sell, selling or importing any patented invention. Because an inventor or assignee does not need to actively enforce its patent, a business model called non-practicing entity (NPE) begins to rise in the marketplace. These entities extract amounts of loyalties and damages by patent litigations, in order to maximize returns on patent investment. However, the abuse of litigation distracts business operations, interferes technological and industrial innovations, raises social costs, and severely damages the U.S. economic system.
　　Although America Invents Act in 2011 makes a great amendment on the patent system and provides many legal provisions to target on NPEs, NPEs still use their cost advantages to make profits from the patent system. Thus, attorney fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. Section 285 gets more and more attentions. According to Section 285, the court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. Especially in May 2014, Supreme Court changes legal practice in the pass, giving district courts more discretion on finding exceptional cases in Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness Inc. and holding that all aspects of a district court’s exceptional-case determination under Section 285 should be reviewed for abuse of discretion in Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems.
　　As the court opens the gate of fee-shifting, accused infringers may have more room to negotiate with NPEs when facing their threats, which makes influence on the abuse of litigation for sure. To gain a better understanding of fee-shifting changes on NPEs, this research will start with analyzing the rise of NPEs and their business models, observing their litigations and related disputes. Besides, this research will put effort on discussing Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness Inc. and Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems, comparing related practices before and after the fee-shifting changes, and analyzing the related impacts on NPEs.
參考文獻 壹、中文文獻
一、專書
王承守、鄧穎懋，《美國專利訴訟攻防策略運用》，元照，2007年6月。
周延鵬，《智慧財產權全球行銷獲利聖經》，天下雜誌，2010年1月。
馮震宇，《鳥瞰21世紀智慧財產：從創新研發到保護運用》，元照，2011年5月。
馮震宇，《智慧財產權發展趨勢與重要問題研究》，元照，2011年1月。
二、論文與研究報告
朱仙莉，〈由訴訟模式探討智慧財產研發公司專利運用－以記憶體產業Rambus、Tessera公司為例〉，國立政治大學智慧財產研究所碩士論文，2010年10月。
李明峻，〈從Patent Trolls議題看美台專利改革與解決之道〉，國立政治大學法律科技整合研究所碩士論文，2010年1月。
黃紫旻，〈專利地痞與企業因應策略〉，國立政治大學智慧財產研究所碩士論文，頁85，2008年6月。
陳香羽，〈專利聚集之運作模式分析〉，國立政治大學智慧財產研究所碩士論文， 2013年7月。
馮震宇，〈智慧財產權熱核戰時代的企業智財策略〉，崇智協會EMBA沙龍講座，2013年11月。
三、期刊文章
向乾瑋，〈不實施專利實體在高科技專利市場中之角色與定位〉，科技法律透析，第25卷，第10期，2013年10月。
李治安，〈商業方法相關智慧財產權問題之研究〉，科技法律透析，第13卷，第12期，2001年12月。
苗雨、周潔，〈NPE訴訟應對策略分析〉，中國知識產權，第80期，2013年10月。
周碧鳳，〈美國專利法修正案概況介紹〉，萬國法律，2012年06月。
洪志勳，〈美國專利法修法趨勢及現況〉，科技法律透析，19卷4期，2007年04月。
馮震宇，〈專利世界大戰 蘋果PK宏達電〉，能力雜誌，2012年9月。
馮震宇，〈3神器 專利流氓夜遁逃 美國專利修正法案上路〉，能力雜誌，2013年11月，http://paper.udn.com/udnpaper/POE0039/248592/web/（最後瀏覽日：2014年08月01日）。
蘇瓜藤、張書瑋，〈無形資產之評價（下）〉，會計研究月刊，第253期，2006年12月。
薛雅丰，〈非專利實施體的發展趨勢與近況〉，科技法律透析，第25卷，第1期，2013年1月。
顏上詠、陳帝利，〈歐洲與美國商業方法專利學理之研究〉，東海大學法學研究，第21期，2004年12月。
貳、外文文獻
一、研究報告
AIPLA, REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC SURVEY (2013)
AM. INTELL. PROP. LAW ASS’N, REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC SURVEY, 34 (2013)
ALAN R. THIELE ET AL., THE PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION HANDBOOK 65 (AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 2011)
CAFC STATISTICS, Charts for filing and disposition data for appeals in patent infringement cases, available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/Statistics/patent%20filings%20historical.pdf (last visited: May 14, 2014)
Executive Office of the President, Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/patent_report.pdf (last visited: Jan. 22, 2014)
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE EVOLVING IP MARKETPLACE: ALIGNING PATENT NOTICE AND REMEDIES WITH COMPETITION (2011), available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/evolving-ip-marketplace-aligning-patent-notice-and-remedies-competition-report-federal-trade/110307patentreport.pdf (last visited: May 12, 2014)
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, A PATENT SYSTEM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS (2004)
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2013 PATENT LITIGATION STUDY (2013)
RPX CORPORATION, SEC FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT (2013)
RPX CORPORATION, 2013 NPE LITIGATION REPORT (2013)
TO PROMOTE INNOVATION: THE PROPER BALANCE OF COMPETITION AND PATENT LAW AND POLICY, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (2003).
The White House, FACT SHEET: White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues, Jun. 4, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/04/fact-sheet-white-house-task-force-high-tech-patent-issues (last visited: Aug. 15, 2014)
U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, FACT AND TRENDS REGARDING USITC SECTION 337 INVESTIGATIONS (2012)
U.S. PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, PATENTING BY ORGANIZATIONS 2013, A1-2 (2014), http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/reports_topo.htm (last visited Aug. 21, 2014)
U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, 192 (2013), available at http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ar/USPTOFY2013PAR.pdf (last visited: Aug. 1, 2014)
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (2013)
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF RAMBUS INC. (2013)
U.S. INT’L TRADE COMM’N, FACTS AND TRENDS REGARDING USITC SECTION 337 INVESTIGATIONS, 2 (2013), available at http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/documents/featured_news/337facts.pdf (last visited: Aug. 2, 2014)
JAMES BESSEN AND MICHAEL J. MEURER, PATENT FAILURE 169 (2008)
Brain T. Yeh, An Overview of the “Patent Trolls” Debate, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH, 10-11 (2013), available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42668.pdf (last visited: May 14, 2014)
二、期刊文章
John R. Allison, Mark A. Lemley & Joshua Walker, Extreme Value of Trolls on Top? The Characteristics of the Most-Litigated Patents, 158 U. PA. L. REV. 1, 10 (2009)
James E. Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes, Boston Univ. School of Law, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 12-34 (2012)
James E. Bessen, Michael J. Meurer & Jennifer Laurissa Ford, The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls, Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 11-45 (2011)
James E. Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, The Private Costs of Patent Litigation, 9 J.L. Econ. & Pol’y 59, 62 (2012)
Colleen V. Chien & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest, 98 CORNELL L. REV. 1 (2012)
Colleen V. Chien, From Arms Race to Marketplace: The Complex Patent Ecosystem and Its Implications for the Patent System, 62 HASTINGS L. J. 297, 327 (2010)
Colleen V. Chien, Startups and Patent Trolls, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-12 (2012)
Colleen V. Chien, Patent Trolls by the Numbers, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-13 (2013), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2233041 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2233041 (last visit May 9, 2014)
Colleen V. Chien, Reforming Software Patents, 50 HOUS. L. REV. 325, 372-373 (2012)
Emily H. Chen, Making Abusers Pay: Deterring Patent Litigation by Shifting Attorney’s Fees, 28 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 351, 359 (2013)
Henry Delcamp & Ajia Leiponen, Patent acquisition services: A market solution to a legal problem or nuclear warfare?, Cornell University Dyson Research and Extension Seminar Study Paper, 17 (2012)
Joseph Farrell & Carl Shapiro, How Strong Are Weak Patents?, 98 AM. ECON. REV. 1347, 1361 (2008)
Robin Feldman & Tom Ewing, The Giants Among Us, 2012 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 1 (2012)
Marie Gryphon, Assessing the Effects of a “Loser Pays” Rule on the American Legal System: An Economic Analysis and Proposal for Reform, 8 RUTGERS J. L. & PUB. POL`Y 567, 595-601 (2011)
Andrei Hagiu & David Yoffie, Intermediaries for the IP Market, HARVARD BUS. SCH., Working Paper No. 12-023 (2011)
Peter D Holden, G. Parker and A. Jain, The Ever-changing IP Monetization Marketplace for PAEs, INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, July/August, 2013.
Brian J. Love, Professors’ Letter in Support of Patent Reform Legislation (2013), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2359621 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2359621 (last visited: Aug. 7, 2014)
Jiaqing "Jack" Lu, The Economics and Controversies of Nonpracticing Entities (NPEs): How NPEs and Defensive Patent Aggregators Will Change License Market, Les Nouvelles, 55-68, March, and 147-155, June (2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1935524 (last visited: April 29, 2014)
Mark A. Lemley, Ignoring Patents, 2008 MICH. ST. L. REV. 19, 19 (2008)
Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 TEX. L. REV. 1991 (2007)
Mark Liang & Brian Berliner, Fee Shifting in Patent Litigation, 18 VA. J.L. & TECH. 59, 76-78 (2013)
Terry Ludlow, Leveraging Patent Catalogues to Reap the Benefit of your Portfolio, INTELLECTUAL ASSENT MANAGEMENT, July/August 2013, 88.
Terry Ludlow, Identifying Valuable Patents, Jan. 2014, available at http://www.eventipr.com/administrator/presentation_file/Terry%20Ludlow.pdf (last visited: April 24, 2014)
Xun Liu, Joinder under the AIA: Shifting Non-Practicing Entity Patent Assertions away from Small Businesses, 19 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 489, 506 (2013), available at http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr/vol19/iss2/6 (last visited: Aug. 1, 2014)
Daniel P. McCurdy, Patent Trolls Erode the Foundation of the U.S. Patent System, SCI. PROGRESS, Fall & Winter 2008/2009, 80-81.
Gerard N. Magliocca, Blackberries and Barnyards: Patent Trolls and the Perils of Innovation, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1809, 1827 (2007), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=921252 (last visited: April 29, 2014)
Jane P. Mallor, Punitive Attorneys’ Fees for Abuses of the Judicial System, 61 N.C. L. REV. 613, 617 (1983)
Jennifer F. Miller, Should Juries Hear Complex Patent Case?, 2004 DUKE L. & TECH. REV. 4 (2004)
James F. McDonough III, The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy, 56 EMORY L. J. 189, 212 (2006)
Nathan Myhrvold, The Big Idea: Funding Eureka!, 2010 HARV. BUS. REV., 40 (2010)
Marco Morgan, Stop Looking Under the Bridge for Imaginary Creatures: A Comment Examining Who Really Deserves the Title Patent Troll, 17 FED. CIR. B. J. 165, 214-216 (2008)
Mark S. Popofsky & Michael D. Laufert, Patent Assertion Entities and Antitrust: Operating Company Patent Transfers, The Antitrust Source, April 2013, available at file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Antitrust-Attacks-on-Patent-Assertion-Entities.PDF (last visited: April 30, 2014)
Edith Ramirez & Lisa Kimmel, A Competition Policy Perspective on Patent Law: The Federal Trade Commission’s Report on the Evolving IP Market, the Antitrust Source, August 1, 2011, available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/competition-policy-perspective-patent-law-federal-trade-commissions-report-evolving-ip-marketplace/1108ipmarketplace.pdf (last visited: May 12, 2014)
Daniel Roth, Patent Litigation Attorneys’ Fees: Shifting from Status to Conduct, 13 CHI.-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. 257, 266 (2013)
David Rosenberg & Steven Shavell, A Model in Which Suits Are Brought for Their Nuisance Value, 5 INT’L REV. L & ECON. 3, 3 (1985)
Charan J. Sandhu, Jeffrey D. Osterman, and Kyle C. Krpata, Strategic Patent Acquisitions – Evaluating and Acquiring Patent Portfolios, Practical Law The Journal 42, June 2013, available at http://www.weil.com/files/upload/June2013_Strategic_Patent_Acquisitions.pdf (last visited: Jan. 20, 2014)
Carl Shapiro, Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting, in 1 INNOVATION POLICY AND THE ECONOMY 119, 120 (Adam Jaffe et al. eds., 2001)
Carl Shapiro, Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties, 12 AM. L. & ECON. REV. 280, 308 (2010)
Charan J. Sandhu, Jeffrey D. Osterman & Kyle C. Krpata, Strategic Patent Acquisitions - Evaluating and Acquiring Patent Portfolios, Transaction & Business, Practical Law, June 2013, available at http://www.weil.com/files/upload/June2013_Strategic_Patent_Acquisitions.pdf (last visited: May 14, 2014)
David L. Schwartz, The Rise of Contingent Fee Representation in Patent Litigation, 64 ALA. L. REV. 335, 342 (2012)
Fiona M. Scott Morton & Carl Shapiro, Strategic Patent Acquisition, 469 (2014)
Peter J. Stern & Timothy G. Doyle, Trend and Developments Regarding Nonpracticing Entities in the U.S., Chizai Kanri, Vol. 61, No.4, 449-450 (2011)
Sannu K. Shrestha, Trolls or Market-makers? An Empirical Analysis of Non-practicing Entities, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 114, 119 (2010)
T. Steiner & S. Guth, Beware Patent Trolls, 46 MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY 38, 38-39 (2005)
Catherine Tucker, Patent Trolls and Technology Diffusion, TILEC Discussion Paper No. 2012-030 (2013), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2136955 (last visited: May 14, 2014)
Saurabh Vishnubhakat, What Patent Attorney Fee Awards Really Look Like, 63 DUKE L. J. ONLINE 15, 25 (2014)
Allen W. Wang, Rise of the patent intermediaries, 25 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 159, 200 (2010)
Joff Wild & Sara-Jayne Clover, The State of Play, INTELLECTUAL ASSENT MANAGEMENT, July/August 2010.
三、司法判決
Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc., 944 F. 2d 1525 (9th Cir. 1991)
Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A., 711 F.3d 1341, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A., 12-1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Eastern R.R. Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motter Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961)
Flimmtec Crop. V. Hydranautics, 67 F.3d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
Forest Labs, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 339 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
Forest Labs., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., No. 96-CV-159A (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2002)
Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 687 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 572 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014)
iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc., 631 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC, 496 Fed. Appx. 57 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 3900975 (D.Minn.)
Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., 910 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (N.D. Ill. 2012)
Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., 732 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. Sharp Corporation, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 2443871 (N.D.Ill.)
Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp., 738 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Kobe Props. SARL v. Checkpoint Sys., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2134 (2014)
Lumen View Technology, LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 2440867 (S.D.N.Y.)
Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-08540 (N.D. Ill. June 22, 2012)
Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014)
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 558 (1988)
Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 508 U.S. 49 (1993)
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Site Update Solutions, LLC v. Accor North America, Inc., 556 Fed.Appx. 962 (2014)
Site Update Solutions, LLC v. Accor North America, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 2238626 (N.D.Cal.)
United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965)
四、立法提案
End Anonymous Patents Act, H.R. 2024, 113th Cong. (2013), available at http://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/hr2024/BILLS-113hr2024ih.pdf (last visited: Jan. 22, 2014)
Patent Abuse Reduction Act, S. 866, 113th Cong. (2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s1013is/pdf/BILLS-113s1013is.pdf (last visited: Jan. 22, 2014)
Patent Litigation Integrity Act, S. 1612, 113th Cong. (2013), available at https://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/s1612/BILLS-113s1612is.pdf (last visited: Aug. 1, 2014)
Patent Quality Improvement Act, S. 866, 113th Cong. (2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s866is/pdf/BILLS-113s866is.pdf (last visited: Jan. 22, 2014)
SHIELD Act, H.R. 6245, 112th Cong. (2012), available at https://beta.congress.gov/112/bills/hr6245/BILLS-112hr6245ih.pdf (last visited: Aug. 11, 2014)
SHIELD Act, H.R. 845, 113th Cong. (2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr845ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr845ih.pdf (last visited: Jan. 22, 2014)
The Patent Litigation and Innovation Act, H.R. 2639, 113th Cong. (2013), available at http://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/hr2639/BILLS-113hr2639ih.pdf (last visited: Jan. 22, 2014)
Innovation Act, H.R. 3309, 113th Cong. (2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr3309ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr3309ih.pdf (last visited: Jan. 22, 2014)
參、網路資料
一、中文部分
〈2010年全球非揮發性記憶體（NVM）市場產值 將超過 690億美元〉，科技產業資訊室，http://cdnet.stpi.narl.org.tw/techroom/market/eeic/eeic116.htm（最後瀏覽日：2014年01月22日）。
〈Intellect Wireless控告Sharp與HP等電腦及通訊業者〉，科技產業資訊室，http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2010/pclass_10_A283.htm（最後瀏覽日：2014年10月21日）。
David，〈專利流氓剋星，科技巨頭共組AST聯盟啟示〉，科技產業資訊室，http://cdnet.stpi.narl.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2008/pclass_08_A044.htm（最後瀏覽日：2014年05月03日）。
王進喜，〈律師費的轉移方式：誰來為訴訟買單？〉，http://lawyering.fyfz.cn/b/84194（最後瀏覽日：2014年08月07日）。
李文強、王維位，〈美國的商業方法專利分析〉，中華智慧資產經營管理協會，2009年10月，http://www.ipama-age.org/analysis/patent%20business%20method.html（最後瀏覽日：2014年04月28日）。
張明海，〈專利地痞的真相〉，美國專利體系文摘，2012年06月，http://mhchang.blog.ntu.edu.tw/2012/06/21/%E5%B0%88%E5%88%A9%E5%9C%B0%E7%97%9E%E7%9A%84%E7%9C%9F%E7%9B%B8/（最後瀏覽日：2014年04月23日）。
陳世傑，〈美國國會提出SHIELD法案 圍堵專利蟑螂橫行〉，資策會科技法律研究中心，https://stli.iii.org.tw/ContentPage.aspx?i=5968（最後瀏覽日：2014年08月07日）。
祈明輝，〈Leahy-Smith 美國發明法案為美國專利體系帶來重大變革〉，頁3-4，2011年10月，三達智慧財產權事務所，http://www.sundial.com.tw/service4file/201110vol601.pdf（最後瀏覽日：2014年07月29日）。
馮震宇，〈專利訴訟費用負擔大逆轉 對抗NPE新利器浮現？〉，科技產業資訊室，http://cdnet.stpi.narl.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2014/pclass_14_A164.htm（最後瀏覽日：2014年06月04日）。
徐仰賢，〈美國專利訴訟外之新選項—多方複審程序（IPR）介紹暨實務分析〉，科技產業資訊室，http://cdnet.stpi.narl.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2013/pclass_13_A185.htm（最後瀏覽日：2014年04月17日）。
郭史蒂夫，〈專利法修正草案是否會改變美國法律實務？〉，2014年04月02日，北美智權報，http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/publish-217.htm（最後瀏覽日：2014年08月15日）。
黃蘭閔，〈2013年美國專利法修法回顧〉，北美智權報，2014年1月21日，http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Laws/US-87.htm#1（最後瀏覽日：2014年04月17日）。
葉雲卿，〈美國專利訴訟系列介紹－陪審團在專利訴訟的角色〉，北美智權報，2012年12月，http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/publish-37.htm#1（最後瀏覽日：2014年04月21日）。
葉雲卿，〈專利訴訟系列－淺談專利訴訟費用與費用管理〉，北美智權報，2013年03月， http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/publish-47.htm（最後瀏覽日：2014年04月22日）。
二、外文部分
American Innovators for Patent Reform, Proposed SHIELD Act Is Anti-Innovation and Pro-Monopoly, http://www.aminn.org/proposed-shield-act-antiinnovation-and-promonopoly (last visited: Aug. 13, 2014)
Dennis Crouch, Supreme Court versus Patent Law, April 3, 2014, LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140403210921-2503830-supreme-court-versus-patent-law (last visited May 5, 2014)
Stacey L. Cohen & Devin A. Kothari, How Highmark and Octane Will Affect Patent Litigants, April 30, 2014, Law360, http://www.law360.com/articles/533413/how-highmark-and-octane-will-affect-patent-litigants (last visited: Aug. 18, 2014)
Eli Dourado, How Patent Privateers Have Eroded Mutually Assured Destruction in the Computer Industry, The Umlaut, http://theumlaut.com/2013/10/02/patent-privateers/ (last visited: April 30, 2014)
Adi Kamdar & Daniel Nazer, Deep Dive: Software Patents and the Rise of Patent Trolls, Feb. 28, 2013, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/deep-dive-software-patents-and-rise-patent-trolls (last visited: April 27, 2014)
Brian Kahin, Software Patents: Separating Rhetoric from Facts, May 2013, Science Progress, http://scienceprogress.org/2013/05/software-patents-separating-rhetoric-from-facts/ (last visited: April 28, 2014)
Hogan Lovells, DOJ and FTC consider NPE antitrust issues, LEXOLOGY, Oct. 12, 2012, http://ehoganlovells.com/cv/11ff3f03de63c2f1d35c4d19144090c8e7ac5902 (last visited: April 29, 2014)
Scott A. McKeown, AIA Post Grant Proceedings Begin to Impact NPE Assertions, Patents Post-Grant, Dec. 27, 2012, http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/12/aia-patentability-proceedings-shut-down-npe#sthash.t4Jny49X.dpuf (last visited: Aug. 1, 2014)
Richard A. Posner, Why There Are Too Many Patents in America, The Atlantic, July 12, 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/why-there-are-too-many-patents-in-america/259725/#bio (last visited April 28, 2014)
Katherine Rautenberg, Lawyers Weigh In On Obama `Patent Troll` Initiatives, June 5, 2013, Law360, http://www.law360.com/articles/447832/lawyers-weigh-in-on-obama-patent-troll-initiatives (last visited: May 18, 2014)
Randall R. Rader, Colleen V. Chien, and David Hricik, Make Patent Trolls Pay in Court (June 4, 2013), New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/opinion/make-patent-trolls-pay-in-court.html?_r=0 (last visited: Jan. 19, 2014)
Jeff Wild, The Real Inventor of the Term “Patent Troll” Revealed, IAM, Aug. 22, 2008, http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=cff2afd3-c24e-42e5-aa68-a4b4e7524177 (last visited: April 29, 2014)
National Restaurant Association, Zeroing in on patent trolls, Dec. 18, 2013, http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/News/Zeroing-in-on-patent-trolls (last visited: May 5, 2014)
Venable LLP, Octane and Highmark: Supreme Court Decisions Give District Courts Greater Discretion to Award Fees, http://www.venable.com/octane-and-highmark-supreme-court-decisions-give-district-courts-greater-discretion-to-award-fees-05-29-2014/ (last visited: Aug. 18, 2014)
AST: http://www.alliedsecuritytrust.com
IV: http://www.intellectualventures.com
Patent Freedom: https://www.patentfreedom.com
RPX Corporation website: http://www.rpxcorp.com
Rambus: http://www.rambus.com
Tessera: http://www.tessera.com
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
101361011
103
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101361011
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 馮震宇zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 郭怡萱zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Kuo, I Hsuanen_US
dc.creator (作者) 郭怡萱zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Kuo, I Hsuanen_US
dc.date (日期) 2014en_US
dc.date.accessioned 3-Feb-2015 10:34:50 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 3-Feb-2015 10:34:50 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Feb-2015 10:34:50 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0101361011en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/73343-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 科技管理與智慧財產研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 101361011zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 103zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 　　美國專利制度為鼓勵創新發明、促進技術進步，賦予權利人有限期間之專利權，以排除他人未經同意而為製造、使用、銷售、銷售之要約、或進口。由於專利權人並未被要求積極實施專利權，市場上因而興起所謂非專利實施實體（Non-Practicing Entity）之商業模式，該等實體以訴訟威脅企業付出為數龐大的權利金或損害賠償金額，達成極大化專利投資報酬之目的。然而，非專利實施實體大量興訟的結果，不僅導致越來越多的企業疲於應付訴訟而影響正常營運，更阻礙技術與產業之創新、增加社會成本，對美國經濟體系產生嚴重之變化與影響。
　　2011年的美國發明法案雖然對專利制度做出大幅修正，提供許多法律機制回應非專利實施實體之商業模式，非專利實施實體卻仍持續利用其訴訟成本之優勢從專利制度中獲得超額之利益。是故，美國專利法第285條關於訴訟費用移轉之機制逐漸受到重視，該條文賦予法院於例外情況下，得裁定由敗訴當事人負擔勝訴當事人合理之律師費用。2014年5月，美國聯邦最高法院改變過去從嚴適用費用移轉規定之訴訟實務，於Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness Inc.判決放寬美國專利法第285條之例外情況判斷標準，賦予地方法院更多裁量權以認定事實，並於Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems判決確立美國專利法第285條之實行範圍，賦予前述事實認定更多尊重。
　　有鑑於費用移轉之機制已具體落實於司法判決之中，未來被控侵權人面臨專利侵權訴訟的威脅時，將有更大的談判籌碼與空間，因此非專利實施實體濫用訴訟之情形勢必產生變化。為了解訴訟費用移轉之機制變革對非專利實施實體訴訟之影響，以提供本國專利實施公司面對非專利實施實體訴訟騷擾時之參考，本文將從分析非專利實施實體之興起原因與商業模式著手，觀察非專利實施實體之訴訟情況與其衍生之爭議所在，並就美國聯邦最高法院之Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness Inc.與Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems兩件判決進行評析，比較訴訟費用移轉變革前後之相關訴訟實務，以及其對非專利實施實體濫用訴訟之影響。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 　　To encourage innovations and facilitate technology developments, the U.S. patent system grants an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time to exclude others from making, using, offering to sell, selling or importing any patented invention. Because an inventor or assignee does not need to actively enforce its patent, a business model called non-practicing entity (NPE) begins to rise in the marketplace. These entities extract amounts of loyalties and damages by patent litigations, in order to maximize returns on patent investment. However, the abuse of litigation distracts business operations, interferes technological and industrial innovations, raises social costs, and severely damages the U.S. economic system.
　　Although America Invents Act in 2011 makes a great amendment on the patent system and provides many legal provisions to target on NPEs, NPEs still use their cost advantages to make profits from the patent system. Thus, attorney fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. Section 285 gets more and more attentions. According to Section 285, the court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. Especially in May 2014, Supreme Court changes legal practice in the pass, giving district courts more discretion on finding exceptional cases in Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness Inc. and holding that all aspects of a district court’s exceptional-case determination under Section 285 should be reviewed for abuse of discretion in Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems.
　　As the court opens the gate of fee-shifting, accused infringers may have more room to negotiate with NPEs when facing their threats, which makes influence on the abuse of litigation for sure. To gain a better understanding of fee-shifting changes on NPEs, this research will start with analyzing the rise of NPEs and their business models, observing their litigations and related disputes. Besides, this research will put effort on discussing Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness Inc. and Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems, comparing related practices before and after the fee-shifting changes, and analyzing the related impacts on NPEs.		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　研究方法與限制 4
第一項 研究方法 4
第二項 研究限制 5
第二章 非專利實施實體之興起與商業模式 7
第一節 非專利實施實體興起之因素 8
第一項 專利制度之失靈 8
第一款 明確性規範 8
第二款 軟體或商業方法專利適格性 9
第三款 專利叢林現象 11
第二項 專利市場之失靈 12
第一款 交易成本 12
第二款 議價能力與地位 13
第三項 專利訴訟之失衡 14
第一款 陪審團制度 15
第二款 訴訟費用金額 15
第三款 損害賠償金額 16
第四款 選擇法院之訴訟策略 17
第二節 非專利實施實體之商業模式 19
第一項 非專利實施實體之類型探討 19
第二項 非專利實施實體之商業模式與案例 21
第一款 專利主張型 21
第二款 防禦型專利聚集 22
第三款 研究發展型 23
第四款 獨立發明人 24
第五款 混合型 25
第三節 非專利實施實體之發展動態 27
第四節 小結 29
第三章 非專利實施實體之訴訟情況與爭議 31
第一節 非專利實施實體訴訟之現況 32
第一項 訴訟案件量 32
第二項 訴訟對象與產業 33
第三項 專利類型與性質 36
第四項 訴訟費用金額 37
第五項 損害賠償金額 39
第六項 選擇法院之訴訟策略 40
第七項 ITC之337條款調查案件 41
第二節 非專利實施實體之爭議 43
第一項 非專利實施實體之負面影響 43
第一款 專利訴訟之濫用 43
第二款 社會成本之增加 44
第三款 市場競爭之阻礙 45
第二項 非專利實施實體之正面影響 47
第一款 專利市場之活絡 47
第二款 專利貨幣化 47
第三節 美國發明法案對非專利實施實體之影響 49
第一項 美國發明法案修改經過 49
第二項 美國發明法案重要修正內涵 50
第一款 專利實體法制之變革 50
第一目 先申請發明人原則 50
第二目 重新定義先前技術 51
第三目 發明人調查程序 51
第二款 專利審查程序之變革 52
第一目 多方複審程序 52
第二目 核准後複審程序 52
第三目 商業方法專利複審程序 53
第三款 專利訴訟之變革 53
第一目 核准前第三人提交先前技術 53
第二目 併案審理制度 53
第三項 美國發明法案對非專利實施實體之影響 54
第四節 小結 56
第四章 美國專利實務與訴訟費用之移轉 59
第一節 訴訟費用移轉理論 60
第二節　美國專利法第285條之探討 62
第一項 立法目的 62
第二項 例外情況之判斷標準 63
第一款 Professional Real Estate Investors案 64
第二款 Forest案 66
第三款 Brooks Furniture案 68
第四款 Kilopass案 69
第三項 例外情況之認定 71
第四項 美國法院訴訟費用移轉判決現況 73
第一款 訴訟案件量 73
第二款 律師費用移轉金額 74
第三款 選擇法院之訴訟策略 75
第三節 訴訟費用移轉之立法趨勢 77
第一項 訴訟費用移轉改革法案 77
第一款 SHIELD法案 77
第二款 創新法案 78
第三款 減少專利濫用法案 79
第四款 專利訴訟完整性法案 80
第二項 改革法案之評析與發展 80
第五章　訴訟費用移轉之變革與非專利實施實體 83
第一節 Octane Fitness v. ICON Health案 84
第一項 案例事實與背景 84
第二項 法律分析 85
第一款 法理基礎 85
第二款 美國專利法第285條之判斷標準 86
第三項 聯邦最高法院之判決結果 88
第二節 Highmark v. Allcare Health案 90
第一項 案件事實與背景 90
第二項 法律分析 91
第一款 法理基礎 91
第二款 上訴法院之審查權限 92
第三款 Mayer法官之不同意見書 94
第三項 聯邦最高法院之判決結果 96
第三節 Octane判決與Highmark判決之評析 97
第四節 訴訟費用移轉變革對非專利實施實體之影響 99
第一項 程序面之分析 99
第二項 實體面之分析 100
第一款 美國法院審理情況之發展 100
第二款 美國專利法第285條勝訴當事人之認定 106
第三款 美國專利法第285條例外情況之認定 107
第三項 經濟面之分析 109
第四項 小節 110
第六章　結論與建議 111
第一節 結論 111
第二節 建議 112
第一項 非專利實施實體可能發展之方向 113
第一款 專利主張品質提高 113
第二款 選擇法院集中化 114
第三款 訴訟對象分散化 114
第四款 商業規模擴大化 115
第二項 策略佈局與運用 116
參考文獻 118
壹、中文文獻 118
一、專書 118
二、論文與研究報告 118
三、期刊文章 118
貳、外文文獻 119
一、研究報告 119
二、期刊文章 121
三、司法判決 125
四、立法提案 126
參、網路資料 127
一、中文部分 127
二、外文部分 129
第一章　緒論 8
第一節　研究動機與目的 8
第二節　研究方法與限制 11
壹、研究方法 11
貳、研究限制 12
第二章 非專利實施實體之興起與商業模式 13
第一節 非專利實施實體之興起 14
壹、專利制度之失靈 14
一、專利權利範圍之明確性 14
二、軟體或商業方法專利適格性 15
三、專利叢林現象 17
貳、專利市場的失靈 18
一、交易成本 19
二、議價能力與地位 21
參、美國專利訴訟之運作 23
一、陪審團制度 23
二、訴訟費用金額 24
三、損害賠償金額 25
四、選擇法院之訴訟策略 26
第二節 非專利實施實體發展現況 28
第三節 非專利實施實體之商業模式 29
壹、非專利實施實體之類型探討 29
貳、非專利實施實體之商業模式與案例 31
一、專利主張型 31
二、防禦型專利聚集 32
三、研究發展型 33
四、獨立發明人 35
五、混合型 35
參、非專利實施實體商業模式之動態發展 36
第四節 小結 37
第三章 非專利實施實體之訴訟情況與爭議 39
第一節 非專利實施實體訴訟之現況 40
壹、訴訟案件量 40
貳、訴訟對象與產業 42
參、專利類型與性質 44
肆、訴訟費用 45
伍、選擇法院之訴訟策略 46
陸、ITC之337條款調查案件 47
第二節 非專利實施實體之爭議 49
壹、非專利實施實體之負面影響 49
一、專利訴訟之濫用 49
二、社會成本之增加 50
三、市場競爭之阻礙 52
貳、非專利實施實體之正面影響 53
一、專利市場之活絡 53
二、專利貨幣化 54
第三節 美國發明法案對非專利實施實體之影響 55
壹、美國發明法案修改經過 55
貳、美國發明法案重要修正內涵 56
一、專利實體法制之變革 57
（一）先申請發明人原則 57
（二）重新定義先前技術 57
（三）發明人調查程序 58
二、專利審查程序之變革 58
（一）多方複審程序 58
（二）核准後複審程序 59
三、專利訴訟之變革 59
（一）核准前第三人提交先前技術 59
（二）併案審理制度 60
參、美國發明法案對非專利實施實體之影響 60
第四節 小結 61
第四章 美國專利實務與訴訟費用之移轉 63
第一節 訴訟費用移轉理論 63
第二節　美國專利法第285條之探討 65
壹、立法目的 65
貳、例外情況之判斷標準 67
一、Professional Real Estate Investors案 67
二、Forest案 68
三、Brooks Furniture案 70
四、Kilopass案 72
參、例外情況之認定 74
肆、美國法院訴訟費用移轉判決現況 75
一、訴訟案件量 75
二、律師費用移轉金額 77
三、選擇法院之訴訟策略 78
第三節 訴訟費用移轉之立法趨勢 79
壹、訴訟費用移轉改革法案 79
一、SHIELD法案 79
二、創新法案 80
三、減少專利濫用法案 81
四、專利訴訟完整性法案 82
貳、改革法案之評析與發展 82
第五章　訴訟費用移轉之變革與非專利實施實體 85
第一節 OCTANE FITNESS V. ICON HEALTH案 85
壹、案例事實與背景 85
貳、法律分析 86
一、法理基礎 86
二、美國專利法第285條之判斷標準 88
參、聯邦最高法院之判決結果 90
第二節 HIGHMARK V. ALLCARE HEALTH案 91
壹、案件事實與背景 91
貳、法律分析 92
一、法理基礎 92
二、上訴法院之審查權限 93
三、Mayer法官之不同意見書 96
參、聯邦最高法院之判決結果 97
第三節 訴訟費用移轉變革對非專利實施實體之影響 98
壹、Octane判決與Highmark判決之評析 98
貳、美國法院審理情況發展對非專利實施實體之影響 100
一、程序面之分析 100
（一）Kobe Properties SARL v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc.案 101
（二）Site Update Solutions, LLC v. Accor North America, Inc.案 102
二、實體面之分析 102
（一）Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. Sharp Corp.案 103
（二）Lumen View Technology, LLC v. Findthebest.com Inc.案 104
三、經濟面之分析 104
四、小結 106
參、非專利實施實體之因應策略 107
一、專利主張品質提高 107
二、選擇法院集中化 108
三、訴訟對象分散化 109
四、商業規模擴大化 110
第六章　結論與建議 111
第一節 結論 111
第二節 建議 112
壹、早期個案評估與和解 113
貳、共同防禦與共同利益 113
參考文獻 115
壹、中文文獻 115
一、專書 115
二、論文與研究報告 115
三、期刊文章 115
貳、外文文獻 116
一、研究報告 116
二、期刊文章 118
三、司法判決 122
四、立法提案 123
參、網路資料 124
一、中文部分 124
二、外文部分 126		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2273617 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101361011en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 非專利實施實體zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 美國專利法第285條zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 訴訟費用之移轉zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) non-practicing entitiesen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 35 U.S.C. Section 285en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) fee-shiftingen_US
dc.title (題名) 論訴訟費用移轉變革對非專利實施實體之影響zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Impact of Fee-Shifting Changes on Non-Practicing Entitiesen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 壹、中文文獻
一、專書
王承守、鄧穎懋，《美國專利訴訟攻防策略運用》，元照，2007年6月。
周延鵬，《智慧財產權全球行銷獲利聖經》，天下雜誌，2010年1月。
馮震宇，《鳥瞰21世紀智慧財產：從創新研發到保護運用》，元照，2011年5月。
馮震宇，《智慧財產權發展趨勢與重要問題研究》，元照，2011年1月。
二、論文與研究報告
朱仙莉，〈由訴訟模式探討智慧財產研發公司專利運用－以記憶體產業Rambus、Tessera公司為例〉，國立政治大學智慧財產研究所碩士論文，2010年10月。
李明峻，〈從Patent Trolls議題看美台專利改革與解決之道〉，國立政治大學法律科技整合研究所碩士論文，2010年1月。
黃紫旻，〈專利地痞與企業因應策略〉，國立政治大學智慧財產研究所碩士論文，頁85，2008年6月。
陳香羽，〈專利聚集之運作模式分析〉，國立政治大學智慧財產研究所碩士論文， 2013年7月。
馮震宇，〈智慧財產權熱核戰時代的企業智財策略〉，崇智協會EMBA沙龍講座，2013年11月。
三、期刊文章
向乾瑋，〈不實施專利實體在高科技專利市場中之角色與定位〉，科技法律透析，第25卷，第10期，2013年10月。
李治安，〈商業方法相關智慧財產權問題之研究〉，科技法律透析，第13卷，第12期，2001年12月。
苗雨、周潔，〈NPE訴訟應對策略分析〉，中國知識產權，第80期，2013年10月。
周碧鳳，〈美國專利法修正案概況介紹〉，萬國法律，2012年06月。
洪志勳，〈美國專利法修法趨勢及現況〉，科技法律透析，19卷4期，2007年04月。
馮震宇，〈專利世界大戰 蘋果PK宏達電〉，能力雜誌，2012年9月。
馮震宇，〈3神器 專利流氓夜遁逃 美國專利修正法案上路〉，能力雜誌，2013年11月，http://paper.udn.com/udnpaper/POE0039/248592/web/（最後瀏覽日：2014年08月01日）。
蘇瓜藤、張書瑋，〈無形資產之評價（下）〉，會計研究月刊，第253期，2006年12月。
薛雅丰，〈非專利實施體的發展趨勢與近況〉，科技法律透析，第25卷，第1期，2013年1月。
顏上詠、陳帝利，〈歐洲與美國商業方法專利學理之研究〉，東海大學法學研究，第21期，2004年12月。
貳、外文文獻
一、研究報告
AIPLA, REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC SURVEY (2013)
AM. INTELL. PROP. LAW ASS’N, REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC SURVEY, 34 (2013)
ALAN R. THIELE ET AL., THE PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION HANDBOOK 65 (AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 2011)
CAFC STATISTICS, Charts for filing and disposition data for appeals in patent infringement cases, available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/Statistics/patent%20filings%20historical.pdf (last visited: May 14, 2014)
Executive Office of the President, Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/patent_report.pdf (last visited: Jan. 22, 2014)
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE EVOLVING IP MARKETPLACE: ALIGNING PATENT NOTICE AND REMEDIES WITH COMPETITION (2011), available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/evolving-ip-marketplace-aligning-patent-notice-and-remedies-competition-report-federal-trade/110307patentreport.pdf (last visited: May 12, 2014)
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, A PATENT SYSTEM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS (2004)
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2013 PATENT LITIGATION STUDY (2013)
RPX CORPORATION, SEC FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT (2013)
RPX CORPORATION, 2013 NPE LITIGATION REPORT (2013)
TO PROMOTE INNOVATION: THE PROPER BALANCE OF COMPETITION AND PATENT LAW AND POLICY, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (2003).
The White House, FACT SHEET: White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues, Jun. 4, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/04/fact-sheet-white-house-task-force-high-tech-patent-issues (last visited: Aug. 15, 2014)
U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, FACT AND TRENDS REGARDING USITC SECTION 337 INVESTIGATIONS (2012)
U.S. PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, PATENTING BY ORGANIZATIONS 2013, A1-2 (2014), http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/reports_topo.htm (last visited Aug. 21, 2014)
U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, 192 (2013), available at http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ar/USPTOFY2013PAR.pdf (last visited: Aug. 1, 2014)
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (2013)
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF RAMBUS INC. (2013)
U.S. INT’L TRADE COMM’N, FACTS AND TRENDS REGARDING USITC SECTION 337 INVESTIGATIONS, 2 (2013), available at http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/documents/featured_news/337facts.pdf (last visited: Aug. 2, 2014)
JAMES BESSEN AND MICHAEL J. MEURER, PATENT FAILURE 169 (2008)
Brain T. Yeh, An Overview of the “Patent Trolls” Debate, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH, 10-11 (2013), available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42668.pdf (last visited: May 14, 2014)
二、期刊文章
John R. Allison, Mark A. Lemley & Joshua Walker, Extreme Value of Trolls on Top? The Characteristics of the Most-Litigated Patents, 158 U. PA. L. REV. 1, 10 (2009)
James E. Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes, Boston Univ. School of Law, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 12-34 (2012)
James E. Bessen, Michael J. Meurer & Jennifer Laurissa Ford, The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls, Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 11-45 (2011)
James E. Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, The Private Costs of Patent Litigation, 9 J.L. Econ. & Pol’y 59, 62 (2012)
Colleen V. Chien & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest, 98 CORNELL L. REV. 1 (2012)
Colleen V. Chien, From Arms Race to Marketplace: The Complex Patent Ecosystem and Its Implications for the Patent System, 62 HASTINGS L. J. 297, 327 (2010)
Colleen V. Chien, Startups and Patent Trolls, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-12 (2012)
Colleen V. Chien, Patent Trolls by the Numbers, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-13 (2013), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2233041 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2233041 (last visit May 9, 2014)
Colleen V. Chien, Reforming Software Patents, 50 HOUS. L. REV. 325, 372-373 (2012)
Emily H. Chen, Making Abusers Pay: Deterring Patent Litigation by Shifting Attorney’s Fees, 28 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 351, 359 (2013)
Henry Delcamp & Ajia Leiponen, Patent acquisition services: A market solution to a legal problem or nuclear warfare?, Cornell University Dyson Research and Extension Seminar Study Paper, 17 (2012)
Joseph Farrell & Carl Shapiro, How Strong Are Weak Patents?, 98 AM. ECON. REV. 1347, 1361 (2008)
Robin Feldman & Tom Ewing, The Giants Among Us, 2012 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 1 (2012)
Marie Gryphon, Assessing the Effects of a “Loser Pays” Rule on the American Legal System: An Economic Analysis and Proposal for Reform, 8 RUTGERS J. L. & PUB. POL`Y 567, 595-601 (2011)
Andrei Hagiu & David Yoffie, Intermediaries for the IP Market, HARVARD BUS. SCH., Working Paper No. 12-023 (2011)
Peter D Holden, G. Parker and A. Jain, The Ever-changing IP Monetization Marketplace for PAEs, INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, July/August, 2013.
Brian J. Love, Professors’ Letter in Support of Patent Reform Legislation (2013), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2359621 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2359621 (last visited: Aug. 7, 2014)
Jiaqing "Jack" Lu, The Economics and Controversies of Nonpracticing Entities (NPEs): How NPEs and Defensive Patent Aggregators Will Change License Market, Les Nouvelles, 55-68, March, and 147-155, June (2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1935524 (last visited: April 29, 2014)
Mark A. Lemley, Ignoring Patents, 2008 MICH. ST. L. REV. 19, 19 (2008)
Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 TEX. L. REV. 1991 (2007)
Mark Liang & Brian Berliner, Fee Shifting in Patent Litigation, 18 VA. J.L. & TECH. 59, 76-78 (2013)
Terry Ludlow, Leveraging Patent Catalogues to Reap the Benefit of your Portfolio, INTELLECTUAL ASSENT MANAGEMENT, July/August 2013, 88.
Terry Ludlow, Identifying Valuable Patents, Jan. 2014, available at http://www.eventipr.com/administrator/presentation_file/Terry%20Ludlow.pdf (last visited: April 24, 2014)
Xun Liu, Joinder under the AIA: Shifting Non-Practicing Entity Patent Assertions away from Small Businesses, 19 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 489, 506 (2013), available at http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr/vol19/iss2/6 (last visited: Aug. 1, 2014)
Daniel P. McCurdy, Patent Trolls Erode the Foundation of the U.S. Patent System, SCI. PROGRESS, Fall & Winter 2008/2009, 80-81.
Gerard N. Magliocca, Blackberries and Barnyards: Patent Trolls and the Perils of Innovation, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1809, 1827 (2007), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=921252 (last visited: April 29, 2014)
Jane P. Mallor, Punitive Attorneys’ Fees for Abuses of the Judicial System, 61 N.C. L. REV. 613, 617 (1983)
Jennifer F. Miller, Should Juries Hear Complex Patent Case?, 2004 DUKE L. & TECH. REV. 4 (2004)
James F. McDonough III, The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy, 56 EMORY L. J. 189, 212 (2006)
Nathan Myhrvold, The Big Idea: Funding Eureka!, 2010 HARV. BUS. REV., 40 (2010)
Marco Morgan, Stop Looking Under the Bridge for Imaginary Creatures: A Comment Examining Who Really Deserves the Title Patent Troll, 17 FED. CIR. B. J. 165, 214-216 (2008)
Mark S. Popofsky & Michael D. Laufert, Patent Assertion Entities and Antitrust: Operating Company Patent Transfers, The Antitrust Source, April 2013, available at file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Antitrust-Attacks-on-Patent-Assertion-Entities.PDF (last visited: April 30, 2014)
Edith Ramirez & Lisa Kimmel, A Competition Policy Perspective on Patent Law: The Federal Trade Commission’s Report on the Evolving IP Market, the Antitrust Source, August 1, 2011, available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/competition-policy-perspective-patent-law-federal-trade-commissions-report-evolving-ip-marketplace/1108ipmarketplace.pdf (last visited: May 12, 2014)
Daniel Roth, Patent Litigation Attorneys’ Fees: Shifting from Status to Conduct, 13 CHI.-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. 257, 266 (2013)
David Rosenberg & Steven Shavell, A Model in Which Suits Are Brought for Their Nuisance Value, 5 INT’L REV. L & ECON. 3, 3 (1985)
Charan J. Sandhu, Jeffrey D. Osterman, and Kyle C. Krpata, Strategic Patent Acquisitions – Evaluating and Acquiring Patent Portfolios, Practical Law The Journal 42, June 2013, available at http://www.weil.com/files/upload/June2013_Strategic_Patent_Acquisitions.pdf (last visited: Jan. 20, 2014)
Carl Shapiro, Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting, in 1 INNOVATION POLICY AND THE ECONOMY 119, 120 (Adam Jaffe et al. eds., 2001)
Carl Shapiro, Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties, 12 AM. L. & ECON. REV. 280, 308 (2010)
Charan J. Sandhu, Jeffrey D. Osterman & Kyle C. Krpata, Strategic Patent Acquisitions - Evaluating and Acquiring Patent Portfolios, Transaction & Business, Practical Law, June 2013, available at http://www.weil.com/files/upload/June2013_Strategic_Patent_Acquisitions.pdf (last visited: May 14, 2014)
David L. Schwartz, The Rise of Contingent Fee Representation in Patent Litigation, 64 ALA. L. REV. 335, 342 (2012)
Fiona M. Scott Morton & Carl Shapiro, Strategic Patent Acquisition, 469 (2014)
Peter J. Stern & Timothy G. Doyle, Trend and Developments Regarding Nonpracticing Entities in the U.S., Chizai Kanri, Vol. 61, No.4, 449-450 (2011)
Sannu K. Shrestha, Trolls or Market-makers? An Empirical Analysis of Non-practicing Entities, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 114, 119 (2010)
T. Steiner & S. Guth, Beware Patent Trolls, 46 MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY 38, 38-39 (2005)
Catherine Tucker, Patent Trolls and Technology Diffusion, TILEC Discussion Paper No. 2012-030 (2013), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2136955 (last visited: May 14, 2014)
Saurabh Vishnubhakat, What Patent Attorney Fee Awards Really Look Like, 63 DUKE L. J. ONLINE 15, 25 (2014)
Allen W. Wang, Rise of the patent intermediaries, 25 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 159, 200 (2010)
Joff Wild & Sara-Jayne Clover, The State of Play, INTELLECTUAL ASSENT MANAGEMENT, July/August 2010.
三、司法判決
Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc., 944 F. 2d 1525 (9th Cir. 1991)
Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A., 711 F.3d 1341, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A., 12-1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Eastern R.R. Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motter Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961)
Flimmtec Crop. V. Hydranautics, 67 F.3d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
Forest Labs, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 339 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
Forest Labs., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., No. 96-CV-159A (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2002)
Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 687 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 572 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014)
iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc., 631 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC, 496 Fed. Appx. 57 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 3900975 (D.Minn.)
Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., 910 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (N.D. Ill. 2012)
Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., 732 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. Sharp Corporation, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 2443871 (N.D.Ill.)
Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp., 738 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Kobe Props. SARL v. Checkpoint Sys., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2134 (2014)
Lumen View Technology, LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 2440867 (S.D.N.Y.)
Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-08540 (N.D. Ill. June 22, 2012)
Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014)
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 558 (1988)
Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 508 U.S. 49 (1993)
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Site Update Solutions, LLC v. Accor North America, Inc., 556 Fed.Appx. 962 (2014)
Site Update Solutions, LLC v. Accor North America, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 2238626 (N.D.Cal.)
United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965)
四、立法提案
End Anonymous Patents Act, H.R. 2024, 113th Cong. (2013), available at http://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/hr2024/BILLS-113hr2024ih.pdf (last visited: Jan. 22, 2014)
Patent Abuse Reduction Act, S. 866, 113th Cong. (2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s1013is/pdf/BILLS-113s1013is.pdf (last visited: Jan. 22, 2014)
Patent Litigation Integrity Act, S. 1612, 113th Cong. (2013), available at https://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/s1612/BILLS-113s1612is.pdf (last visited: Aug. 1, 2014)
Patent Quality Improvement Act, S. 866, 113th Cong. (2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s866is/pdf/BILLS-113s866is.pdf (last visited: Jan. 22, 2014)
SHIELD Act, H.R. 6245, 112th Cong. (2012), available at https://beta.congress.gov/112/bills/hr6245/BILLS-112hr6245ih.pdf (last visited: Aug. 11, 2014)
SHIELD Act, H.R. 845, 113th Cong. (2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr845ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr845ih.pdf (last visited: Jan. 22, 2014)
The Patent Litigation and Innovation Act, H.R. 2639, 113th Cong. (2013), available at http://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/hr2639/BILLS-113hr2639ih.pdf (last visited: Jan. 22, 2014)
Innovation Act, H.R. 3309, 113th Cong. (2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr3309ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr3309ih.pdf (last visited: Jan. 22, 2014)
參、網路資料
一、中文部分
〈2010年全球非揮發性記憶體（NVM）市場產值 將超過 690億美元〉，科技產業資訊室，http://cdnet.stpi.narl.org.tw/techroom/market/eeic/eeic116.htm（最後瀏覽日：2014年01月22日）。
〈Intellect Wireless控告Sharp與HP等電腦及通訊業者〉，科技產業資訊室，http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2010/pclass_10_A283.htm（最後瀏覽日：2014年10月21日）。
David，〈專利流氓剋星，科技巨頭共組AST聯盟啟示〉，科技產業資訊室，http://cdnet.stpi.narl.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2008/pclass_08_A044.htm（最後瀏覽日：2014年05月03日）。
王進喜，〈律師費的轉移方式：誰來為訴訟買單？〉，http://lawyering.fyfz.cn/b/84194（最後瀏覽日：2014年08月07日）。
李文強、王維位，〈美國的商業方法專利分析〉，中華智慧資產經營管理協會，2009年10月，http://www.ipama-age.org/analysis/patent%20business%20method.html（最後瀏覽日：2014年04月28日）。
張明海，〈專利地痞的真相〉，美國專利體系文摘，2012年06月，http://mhchang.blog.ntu.edu.tw/2012/06/21/%E5%B0%88%E5%88%A9%E5%9C%B0%E7%97%9E%E7%9A%84%E7%9C%9F%E7%9B%B8/（最後瀏覽日：2014年04月23日）。
陳世傑，〈美國國會提出SHIELD法案 圍堵專利蟑螂橫行〉，資策會科技法律研究中心，https://stli.iii.org.tw/ContentPage.aspx?i=5968（最後瀏覽日：2014年08月07日）。
祈明輝，〈Leahy-Smith 美國發明法案為美國專利體系帶來重大變革〉，頁3-4，2011年10月，三達智慧財產權事務所，http://www.sundial.com.tw/service4file/201110vol601.pdf（最後瀏覽日：2014年07月29日）。
馮震宇，〈專利訴訟費用負擔大逆轉 對抗NPE新利器浮現？〉，科技產業資訊室，http://cdnet.stpi.narl.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2014/pclass_14_A164.htm（最後瀏覽日：2014年06月04日）。
徐仰賢，〈美國專利訴訟外之新選項—多方複審程序（IPR）介紹暨實務分析〉，科技產業資訊室，http://cdnet.stpi.narl.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2013/pclass_13_A185.htm（最後瀏覽日：2014年04月17日）。
郭史蒂夫，〈專利法修正草案是否會改變美國法律實務？〉，2014年04月02日，北美智權報，http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/publish-217.htm（最後瀏覽日：2014年08月15日）。
黃蘭閔，〈2013年美國專利法修法回顧〉，北美智權報，2014年1月21日，http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Laws/US-87.htm#1（最後瀏覽日：2014年04月17日）。
葉雲卿，〈美國專利訴訟系列介紹－陪審團在專利訴訟的角色〉，北美智權報，2012年12月，http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/publish-37.htm#1（最後瀏覽日：2014年04月21日）。
葉雲卿，〈專利訴訟系列－淺談專利訴訟費用與費用管理〉，北美智權報，2013年03月， http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/publish-47.htm（最後瀏覽日：2014年04月22日）。
二、外文部分
American Innovators for Patent Reform, Proposed SHIELD Act Is Anti-Innovation and Pro-Monopoly, http://www.aminn.org/proposed-shield-act-antiinnovation-and-promonopoly (last visited: Aug. 13, 2014)
Dennis Crouch, Supreme Court versus Patent Law, April 3, 2014, LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140403210921-2503830-supreme-court-versus-patent-law (last visited May 5, 2014)
Stacey L. Cohen & Devin A. Kothari, How Highmark and Octane Will Affect Patent Litigants, April 30, 2014, Law360, http://www.law360.com/articles/533413/how-highmark-and-octane-will-affect-patent-litigants (last visited: Aug. 18, 2014)
Eli Dourado, How Patent Privateers Have Eroded Mutually Assured Destruction in the Computer Industry, The Umlaut, http://theumlaut.com/2013/10/02/patent-privateers/ (last visited: April 30, 2014)
Adi Kamdar & Daniel Nazer, Deep Dive: Software Patents and the Rise of Patent Trolls, Feb. 28, 2013, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/deep-dive-software-patents-and-rise-patent-trolls (last visited: April 27, 2014)
Brian Kahin, Software Patents: Separating Rhetoric from Facts, May 2013, Science Progress, http://scienceprogress.org/2013/05/software-patents-separating-rhetoric-from-facts/ (last visited: April 28, 2014)
Hogan Lovells, DOJ and FTC consider NPE antitrust issues, LEXOLOGY, Oct. 12, 2012, http://ehoganlovells.com/cv/11ff3f03de63c2f1d35c4d19144090c8e7ac5902 (last visited: April 29, 2014)
Scott A. McKeown, AIA Post Grant Proceedings Begin to Impact NPE Assertions, Patents Post-Grant, Dec. 27, 2012, http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/12/aia-patentability-proceedings-shut-down-npe#sthash.t4Jny49X.dpuf (last visited: Aug. 1, 2014)
Richard A. Posner, Why There Are Too Many Patents in America, The Atlantic, July 12, 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/why-there-are-too-many-patents-in-america/259725/#bio (last visited April 28, 2014)
Katherine Rautenberg, Lawyers Weigh In On Obama `Patent Troll` Initiatives, June 5, 2013, Law360, http://www.law360.com/articles/447832/lawyers-weigh-in-on-obama-patent-troll-initiatives (last visited: May 18, 2014)
Randall R. Rader, Colleen V. Chien, and David Hricik, Make Patent Trolls Pay in Court (June 4, 2013), New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/opinion/make-patent-trolls-pay-in-court.html?_r=0 (last visited: Jan. 19, 2014)
Jeff Wild, The Real Inventor of the Term “Patent Troll” Revealed, IAM, Aug. 22, 2008, http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=cff2afd3-c24e-42e5-aa68-a4b4e7524177 (last visited: April 29, 2014)
National Restaurant Association, Zeroing in on patent trolls, Dec. 18, 2013, http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/News/Zeroing-in-on-patent-trolls (last visited: May 5, 2014)
Venable LLP, Octane and Highmark: Supreme Court Decisions Give District Courts Greater Discretion to Award Fees, http://www.venable.com/octane-and-highmark-supreme-court-decisions-give-district-courts-greater-discretion-to-award-fees-05-29-2014/ (last visited: Aug. 18, 2014)
AST: http://www.alliedsecuritytrust.com
IV: http://www.intellectualventures.com
Patent Freedom: https://www.patentfreedom.com
RPX Corporation website: http://www.rpxcorp.com
Rambus: http://www.rambus.com
Tessera: http://www.tessera.com		zh_TW