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

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 技術標準必要專利與禁制令救濟之研究
A Study of Injunctive Relief and Standard Essential Patent Infringement
作者 王柏翔
Wang, Bo-Hsiang
貢獻者 沈宗倫
Shen, Chung Lun
王柏翔
Wang, Bo-Hsiang
關鍵詞 技術標準
專利侵權
標準制訂組織
禁制令
禁制令救濟
公平、合理且無歧視原則
競爭法
patent
infringement
Competition Law
standardization
standard essential patent; SEP; F/RAND; fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory
日期 2015
上傳時間 1-Sep-2015 16:19:26 (UTC+8)
摘要 技術標準化與相關智慧財產權保護，一直以來為智慧財產權法與競爭法的交集與爭議的話題。其中又以標準必要專利侵權糾紛為主。基於標準必要專利權人與前在被授權人雙方的立場，其中目前最具爭議的問題應該涉及禁制令救濟的適用性或以F/RAND授權原則為基礎的抗辯來排除侵權。
標準制訂組織（Standard Setting Organization, SSO）訂定F/RAND授權原則承諾（Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory）於其智慧財產權政策，要求標準專利權人應以公平、合理且無歧視的授權條件，向所有標準實施者提供授權。F/RAND授權原則承諾之發展，目前趨向於強調專利權人的契約義務，以第三方受益人的立場來平衡授權當事人的談判地位；如何「符合F/RAND授權原則之授權」，目前各國尚未有明文法律解釋，對於F/RAND授權原則承諾之清楚定義與規範，目前僅有法院及競爭法主管機關之見解。
在標準必要專利訴訟中，台灣廠商處於被告之身分的狀況居多。面對禁制令的威脅，如何更清楚地了解目前各管轄法院的看法以決定訴訟或談判策略更是重要。本文整理美國、歐洲及亞洲國家之管轄法院案例，加上對競爭法架構下的標準專利授權規範的分析，最後整理如何讓F/RAND授權原則承諾成為對抗禁制令有效抗辯。希望本文能為涉及標準專利訴訟之台灣廠商提供有價值的參考意見。
Technology standardization and intellectual property protection has been an overlapping and controversial issue between Intellectual Property laws and Competition Law, particularly when it comes to infringement on F/RAND encumbered Standard Essential Patent, SEP. From both standard essential patent owner and potential licensee’ perspectives, the most questionable issue is whether injunctive relief should be available to the holder of F/RAND encumbered SEP who committed to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (F/RAND) terms, in order to prevent a third-party implementer from practicing a standard reading on that SEP, when such implementer is willing to take a license but the parties disagree on the terms of the license.
Furthermore, the definition of F/RAND has never been clearly defined by statutes or interpreted by any judiciary; interested parties could only refer to decisions or guidelines made by the judiciaries or competition authorities in different countries. It is rather common for Taiwanese companies to face F/RAND encumbered SEP law suits as the defendants. Given the even severer threat of injunctive relief, it becomes more important to understand the position each judiciary takes on this issue to have appropriate strategies on law suits and negotiation.
This thesis is accordingly written on the following perspectives: firstly, starting with discussion about F/RAND-encumbered SEP law suits in the United States, Europe and Asia; secondly, bringing in SEP encumbered disputes or investigations into framework of Competition Law from competition authorities among different countries and lastly trying to present possibilities that F/RAND commitment as a cause of action under Contract Law can be applied as defense to overcome injunctive relief sought by F/RAND-encumbered SEP licensors. Meanwhile, this thesis is expected to provide Taiwanese companies valuable strategies to law suits or disputes involving F/RAND-encumbered SEPs.
參考文獻 一、 中文書籍

1. 曾陳明汝（2004年），兩岸暨歐美專利法，學林文化事業有限公司。
2. 曾陳明汝（1983年），專利商標法選論。
3. 黃文儀（1994年），申請專利範圍的解釋與專利侵害判斷。
4. 劉尚志、王敏銓、張宇樞與林明儀（2005年），Patent Wars 美台專利訴訟—實戰暨裁判解析。
5. 王本耀編譯（2004年），美國國際貿易委員會訴訟實務，財團法人亞太智慧財產權發展基金會。
6. 張美惠譯 (1999年)，資訊經營法則，(原作者: Carl Shapiro & Hal R Varian)，時報出版社。
7. 陳家駿、羅怡德(1999 年 11 月)，公平交易法與智慧財產權─以專利追索為中心，五南圖書出版有限公司。

二、 中文期刊/論文

1. 鄭中人（2004年5月），專利權之行使與定暫時狀態之處分，臺灣本土法學雜誌，第58期。
2. 馮震宇（2004年6月），從美國司法實務看台灣專利案件之假處分救濟，月旦法學，第109期。
3. 林修同（2008年1月號），美國專利實務與最近發展(一)，連展人-智權專欄。
4. 黃銘傑（2002年8月），專利集管與公平交易法，月旦法學 (No.87）。
5. 馮震字(2014年5月)，從美國專利發明法變革探討對未來專利訴訟之影響（2/3），行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫。
6. 張春飛（2008年），Wi-Fi技術的原理及未來發展趨勢，數字社區與智能家居，2008年11期。
7. 李素華（2008年4月），專利權行使與公平交易法-以近用技術標準之關鍵專利為中心，公平交易季刊，第16卷第2期。
8. 劉尚志、王俊凱（2006年1月），美國國際貿易委員會之專利紛爭與台灣企業因應之道，日新警察。
9. 陳家駿(1994年1月)，專利授權與之不公平競爭之不正當行為，法令月刊，第四十五卷第一期。
10. 陳起行(2007年3月)，由美國不正競爭法之排除適用探討智慧財產權法理念，政大法學評論，第五十七期。
11. 張勤敏（2006年7月），專利侵害民事救濟程序問題研究—以保全程序與證據調查為中心，清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
12. 李兆國(2003年)，標準制訂組織及標準專利權之爭議，交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
13. 陳俐妤(2014年)，標準必要專利權利金爭議之探討，政治大學科技管理與智慧財產權研究所碩士論文。
14. 全球專利訴訟案分析（2012年12月31日），通訊產業專利趨勢與專利訴訟分析研究計劃。
15. 陳怡妃（2006年7月），台灣及美國專利侵害損害賠償與立法效力之探討，交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
16. 劉孔中，Heinz Goddar，Christian W. Appelt與蔡季芬(2013年)，歐洲專利實務指南，翰蘆圖書出版。

三、 英文書籍

1. Herbert Hovenkamp, Mark D. Janis, Mark A. Lemley & Christopher R. Lesilie (2014), IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law (2nd ed.).
2. Donald S. Chisum, Craig Allen Nard, Herbert F. Schwartz, Pauline Newman & F. Scott Kieff (2004), Principles of Patent Law – Cases and Materials (3rd ed.)
3. Robert P. Merges, Peter S. Menell, Mark A. Lemley & Thomas M. Jorde (1997), Intellectual Property in the New Technology Age.
4. Steven Anderman & Hedvig Schmidt (2011), Eu Competition Law And Intellectual Property Rights The Regulation Of Innovation (2nd ed.)
5. Steven Anderman & Ariel Ezrachi (2011), Intellectual Property And Competition Law New Frontiors.

四、 英文期刊/論文

1. Carl Shapiro (2001), “Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting”, Innovation Policy and the Economy Vol. I MIT Press.
2. Michael W. Carroll (2007), Patent Injunctions and the Problem of Uniformity Cost, 13 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. 421, 437.
3. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro (2009), Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, Texas Law Review Vol. 85: 1991, 1993.
4. Mark A. Lemley (2002), Intellectual Property Rights and Standard Setting Organizations, California Law Review Vol. 90:1889.
5. J. Gregory Sidak (2013), The Meaning of FRAND, Part I: Royalties, 9 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 931.
6. Richard A. Posner (2005), Intellectual Property: The Law and Economics Approach, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 19, Number 2.
7. David B. Conrad (2006), Minig the Patent Thicket: The Supreme Court’s Rejection of The Automatic Injunction rule in eBay v. MercExchange, 26 REVLITIG 119.
8. James J. Lisak (2006), An Analysis of Ebay, Inc. v. MercExchange L.L.C.: Patenting Gone Away, 19, LOY. CONSUMER L. REV. 70.
9. John Flock, (2011), Protecting Ip Rights In International Business Transactions, Aspatore.
10. Mario Mariniello (2011), Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Terms: A Challenge for Competition Authorities, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, doi: 10.1093/joclec/nhr010.
11. Dennis W. Carlton & Allan L. Shampine (2013), An Economic Interpretation of FRAND, Journal of Competitino Law & Economics, doi:10.1093/joclec/nht019.
12. Joseph Kattan (2013), FRAND Wars and Section 2, Vol. 27(3) Antitrust 30.
13. Rudi Bekkers & Arianna Martinelli (2012), Knowledge positions in high-tech markets: Trajectories, standards, strategies and true innovators, 79 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1192, doi: 10.1016/j.
14. Jonathan L. Rubin (2007), The IP Grab: The Struggle Between Intellectual Property Rights and Antitrust: Patents, Antitrust, and Rivalry in Standard-Setting, 38 RUTGERS L.J. 509.
15. Joseph Farrel, John Hayes, Carl Shapiro & Theresa Sullivan (2007), Standard Setting, Patent, and Hold-Up, 74 ANTITRUST L.J. 603.
16. Francois Leveque & Yann Ménière (June 2010), Vagueness in RAND Licensing Obligations is Unreasonable for Patent Owners (June 2010), CERNA Working paper Series 2009-04.
17. Kai-Uwe Kühn, Fiona Scott Morton & Howard Shelanski (March 05, 2013), Standard Setting Organizations Can Help Solve the Standard Essential Patents Licensing Problem, CPI Antitrust Chronicle.

五、 判決

1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
2. New York City v. Pine, 185 U.S. 93,108（1902)
3. Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., 2012 WL 5416941, *15 W.D. Wisc. Oct. 29, 2012
4. Foster v. Am. Mach. & Foundry Co., 492 F.2d 1317, 1324 (2d Cir. 1974)
5. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F. 3d 1370, 1375 Fed. Cir. 2012
6. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc., No. C10-1823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Nov. 30, 2012)
7. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 951, 986 (N.D. Cal. 2009)
8. Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 592 F. Supp. 2d 727, 748 & n.10 (D. Del. 2009)
9. Eastern R. Conference v. Noerr Motors, 365 U.S. 127 (1961)
10. United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965)
11. California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972)
12. Negotiated-Data Solution LLC FTC No 051 0094 (2008).
13. Robert Bosch GmbH, FTC File No. 121-0081, Docket No. C-4377
14. Cont`l Paper Bag Co. v. E. Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 422 (1908)
15. Smith Int’l., Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 718 F.2d 1573, 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 686 , (Fed. Cir.1983)
16. Oakley Inc. v. Sunglass Hut International, 316 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
17. Jeffrey Milstein, Inc. v. Greger, Lawlor, Roth, Inc. 58 F.3d 27, 31, 35 u.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1284, 1286 (2d Cir. 1995)
18. High Tech Med. Instrumentation Inc. v. New Image Indus. Inc., 49 F.3d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
19. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 320, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91.
20. Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 868 F.2d 1226, 1247, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1913, 1929 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
21. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (U.S., 2006).
22. Hyundai Elects. Indus. Co. v. U.S. Int`l Trade Comm`n, 899 F.2d 1204, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
23. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp, 5:12-cv-03451-RMW
24. German Federal Supreme Court, November 23, 2000, doc. no. I ZR 93/98
25. IPCom v. Nokia, (District Court of Dusseldorf, April 24, 2012, doc. no. 4b 273/10)
26. IPCom v. HTC, (District Court of Mannheim, July 2, 2009, doc. no.7 O 94/08)
27. Navitaire Inc v. Easyjet Airline Co, [2004] EWHC 1725 (Ch)
28. Shelfer v.City of London Electric Lighting Co, [1895] 1 Ch 287
29. Broadcom Corp v Qualcomm Inc 501 F 3d 297 (3d Cir 2007)
30. Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486US492 (1988).
31. Spansion, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 629 F.3d 1331, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
32. Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Table Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-794
33. Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-868
34. Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-745
35. Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-800
36. Orange Book Standard, (German Federal Supreme Court, May 6, 2009, doc. no. KZR 39/06)
37. Philips v. SonyEricsson, (District Court of Mannheim, May 27, 2011, doc. no. 7 O 65/10).
38. Motorola v. Apple, (Court of Appeal in Karlsruhe, February 27, 2012, doc. no. 6 U 136/11).
39. IPCom v. Nokia, (District Court of Mannheim, February 18, 2011, doc. no. 7 O 100/10)
40. IPCom v. Nokia, (District Court of Dusseldorf, April 24, 2012, doc. no. 4b O 273/10)
41. Motorola v. Microsoft, (District Court of Mannheim, May 2, 2012, doc. no. 2 O 240/11)
42. Philips v. SonyEricsson, (District Court of Mannheim, May 27, 2011, doc. no. 7 O 65/10)
43. Motorola v. Apple,(District Court of Mannheim, December 9, 2011, doc. no. 7 O 122/11)
44. Huawei v. ZTE, (District Court of Dusseldorf, March 21, 2013, 4b chamber)
45. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v SK Kassetten GmbH & Co. KG, Rechtbank `s-Gravenhage, 17 March 2010, Docket n°: 316533 / HA ZA 08-2522 and 316535 / HA ZA 08-2524
46. Sony Supply Chain Solutions (Europe) B.V. and LG Electronics, Inc., Rechtbank `s-Gravenhage, 10 March 2011, Docket n°: 389067 / KG ZA11-269
47. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc. et. al., Rechtbank `s-Gravenhage, 14 March 2012, Docket n°: 400367 / HA ZA 11-2212, 400376 / HA ZA 11-2213 and 400385 / HA ZA 11-2215
48. Koninklijke Philips Electronic N.V. v. Computer Support Italcard s.r.l. Court of Genoa, 7 May 2004, 14 October 2004 and 15 November 2004
49. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, and Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.a. v. Apple Inc. et. al., Tribunale de Milano, Court Order of 5 January 2012, N.R.G. 45629-1-2011 and N.R.G.59734-2011
50. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics France v. Apple France S.A.R.L., Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, France, 8 December 2011, Case No. 11/58301
51. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. TCT Mobile Europe SAS and TCT Mobile International Ltd., Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 29 November 2013, Docket № 12/14922.
52. Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Company and Meux’s Brewery Company v. City of London Electric Lighting Company, [1895] 1 Ch. 287
53. Nokia Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co. KG, [2012] EWHC 1446 (Ch)
54. Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., et. al., [2013] EWHC 1591 (Pat)
55. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et. al. v. Apple Japan, Inc., et. al., and Apple Inc. et. al. v. Samsung JapanCorp., et. al., Tokyo District Court, 28 February 2013, Cases nos Tokyo District Ct. 2011 (YO) 22027, 2011(YO) 22098, and Case no. 2011 (WA) 38969.
56. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Korea Ltd, Seoul Central District Court, 24 August 2012, Case no. 2011 GaHap 39552
57. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Micromax Informatics Ltd. and Mercury Electronics Ltd., High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Court order of 6 March 2013, Docket no. C.S. (OS) 442/2013.
58. Micromax Informatics Ltd. and Mercury Electronics Ltd. V. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, High Court ofDelhi at New Delhi, Court order of 12 March 2013, Docket no. FAO(OS) 143/2013.
59. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Micromax Informatics Ltd. and Mercury Electronics Ltd., High Court ofDelhi at New Delhi, Court order of 6 March 2013, Docket no. C.S. (OS) 442/2013.
60. Vringo Infrastructure, Inc., v. ZTE Corp., et. al., High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Court order of November 8, 2013, Docket no. CS(OS) 2168/2013
61. ZTE Corp., et. al. v. Vringo Infrastructure, Inc., High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Court order of December 12, 2013, Docket no. FAO(OS) 573/2013, CAV. 1141/2013, C.M. APPL. 19754/2013 and 19755/2013.
62. EC, MEMO/12/1021 “Samsung – Enforcement of ETSI standards essential patents (SEPs),” [December 12, 2012].
63. ECJ, Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-170/13, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH [20 November, 2014]
64. ECJ, Case C-170/13, Huawei Technologiws Co. Ltd. V, ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland GmbH [16 July, 2015].
65. EC, Case No COMP/M.6381,– Google/Motorola Mobility [February 13, 2012].
66. Samsung v. Apple (District Court of The Hague, March 14, 2012, doc. no. 400367/HA ZA 11-2212)

六、 其他參考資料

1. RosettaNet, http://www.rosettanet.org/ip.
2. 陳智超，論專利權之效力，經濟部智慧財產局—專利商品化網站，取自 http://pcm.tipo.gov.tw/Pcm/pro_show.asp?sn=46。
3. 鄭惇文，美國國際貿易委員會(ITC)簡介以及其對專利實務之影響，冠亞智財，取自http://www.gainia.com/front/bin/ptdetail.phtml?Category=100016&Part=124.
4. Open Mobile Alliance IPR Procedural Guidelines, http://openmobilealliance.org/about-oma/policies-and-terms-of-use/intellectual-property-rights/.
5. IEEE Standard Association, PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERING WHETHER IEEE SHOULD FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF ON ISSUES AFFECTING THE STANDARDS ASSOCIATION, retrived from https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/amicus.pdf.
6. 孫遠釗(2013年8月29日)，保護主義抑或捍衛競爭？評美國總統否決聯邦國際貿易委員會對蘋果產品的判定，取自http://www.uipex.com/monpub_show.aspx?ID=MP13082913482153。
7. 陳宜誠(2013年1月16日)，標準關鍵專利與禁制令的執行（上），取自http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/publish-42.htm。
8. 最高人民法院知識產權案件報告(2008)，取自http://www.chinalaw.gov.cn/article/fgkd/xfg/sfwj/201012/20101200330568.shtml。
9. 華為訴美國IDC終審：IDC敗訴賠兩千萬，取自http://mag.chinareviewnews.com/crn-webapp/touch/detail.jsp?coluid=10&kindid=0&docid=102828999。
10. 國家工商總局公布《關於禁止濫用知識產權排除、限制競爭行為的規定》，取自
http://www.saic.gov.cn/zwgk/zyfb/zjl/fld/201504/t20150413_155103.html。
11. ETSI, Annex 6: ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy,ETSI Rule of Procedure (November 19, 2014), retrived from http://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-ipr-policy.pdf.
12. Esteban Burrone, Standards, Intellectual Property Rights（IPRs）and Standards-setting Process, World Intellectual Property Organization, retrived from http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_standards_fulltext.html.
13. IEEE, IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws (2015), http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sb_bylaws.pdf.
14. J. Gregory Sidak, Chairman CRITERION E CONOMICS (January 28, 2015), Re Business Review Letter for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Concerning Proposed Bylaw Amendments Affecting FRAND Licensing of Standard-Essential Patents, retrieved from https://www.criterioneconomics.com/docs/proposed_ieee_bylaw_amendments_affecting_frand_licensing_of_seps.pdf.
15. Letter from Renata B. Hesse, Acting Assistant Attorney Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Michael A. Lindsey, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney LLP (Feb. 2, 2015), retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/311470.htm.
16. Jones Day (2014), Standards-Essential Patents and Injunctive Relief, retrieved from http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/77a53dff-786c-442d-8028-906e1297060b/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/270fc132-6369-4063-951b-294ca647c5ed/Standards-Essential%20Patents.pdf.
17. Apple, Google settle smartphone patent litigation (May 16, 2014), Reuters, retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/16/us-apple-google-settlement-idUSBREA4F0S020140516.
18. The Federal Trade Commission’s Statement on the Public Interest in Inv. No. 337-TA-745, retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/advocacy_documents/ftc-comment-united-states-international-trade-commission-concerning-certain-wireless-communication/1206ftcwirelesscom.pdf.
19. DOJ/USPTO Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments (January 8, 2013), retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/about/offices/ogc/Final_DOJ-PTO_Policy_Statement_on_FRAND_SEPs_1-8-13.pdf.
20. Letter from USTR Michael Froman RE: Disapproval of the U.S. International Trade Commission’s Determination in the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, Investigation No. 337-TA-794, (August 3, 2014). retrieved from https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF.
21. U.S. Department of Justice (February 13, 2012), Statement of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division on Its Decision toClose Its Investigations of Google Inc.’s Acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. and the Acquisitions of Certain Patents by Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd., retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/February/12-at-210.html .
22. U.S. Department of Justice (February 7, 2014), Statement of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division on Its Decision toClose Its Investigation of Samsung’s Use of Its Standards-Essential Patents, retrived from http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/February/14-at-129.html.
23. Elizabeth Woyke (2011). Identifying the Tech Leaders in LTE Wireless Patents, Forbes, retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethwoyke/2011/09/21/identifying-the-tech-leaders-in-lte-wireless-patents/.
24. Randal C. Miller (October 23, 2014), FRAND at the International Trade Commission, AIPLA Annual Meeting.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法學院碩士在職專班
97961233
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097961233
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 沈宗倫zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Shen, Chung Lunen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 王柏翔zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Wang, Bo-Hsiangen_US
dc.creator (作者) 王柏翔zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Wang, Bo-Hsiangen_US
dc.date (日期) 2015en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Sep-2015 16:19:26 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Sep-2015 16:19:26 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Sep-2015 16:19:26 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0097961233en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/78097-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 法學院碩士在職專班zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 97961233zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 技術標準化與相關智慧財產權保護，一直以來為智慧財產權法與競爭法的交集與爭議的話題。其中又以標準必要專利侵權糾紛為主。基於標準必要專利權人與前在被授權人雙方的立場，其中目前最具爭議的問題應該涉及禁制令救濟的適用性或以F/RAND授權原則為基礎的抗辯來排除侵權。
標準制訂組織（Standard Setting Organization, SSO）訂定F/RAND授權原則承諾（Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory）於其智慧財產權政策，要求標準專利權人應以公平、合理且無歧視的授權條件，向所有標準實施者提供授權。F/RAND授權原則承諾之發展，目前趨向於強調專利權人的契約義務，以第三方受益人的立場來平衡授權當事人的談判地位；如何「符合F/RAND授權原則之授權」，目前各國尚未有明文法律解釋，對於F/RAND授權原則承諾之清楚定義與規範，目前僅有法院及競爭法主管機關之見解。
在標準必要專利訴訟中，台灣廠商處於被告之身分的狀況居多。面對禁制令的威脅，如何更清楚地了解目前各管轄法院的看法以決定訴訟或談判策略更是重要。本文整理美國、歐洲及亞洲國家之管轄法院案例，加上對競爭法架構下的標準專利授權規範的分析，最後整理如何讓F/RAND授權原則承諾成為對抗禁制令有效抗辯。希望本文能為涉及標準專利訴訟之台灣廠商提供有價值的參考意見。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Technology standardization and intellectual property protection has been an overlapping and controversial issue between Intellectual Property laws and Competition Law, particularly when it comes to infringement on F/RAND encumbered Standard Essential Patent, SEP. From both standard essential patent owner and potential licensee’ perspectives, the most questionable issue is whether injunctive relief should be available to the holder of F/RAND encumbered SEP who committed to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (F/RAND) terms, in order to prevent a third-party implementer from practicing a standard reading on that SEP, when such implementer is willing to take a license but the parties disagree on the terms of the license.
Furthermore, the definition of F/RAND has never been clearly defined by statutes or interpreted by any judiciary; interested parties could only refer to decisions or guidelines made by the judiciaries or competition authorities in different countries. It is rather common for Taiwanese companies to face F/RAND encumbered SEP law suits as the defendants. Given the even severer threat of injunctive relief, it becomes more important to understand the position each judiciary takes on this issue to have appropriate strategies on law suits and negotiation.
This thesis is accordingly written on the following perspectives: firstly, starting with discussion about F/RAND-encumbered SEP law suits in the United States, Europe and Asia; secondly, bringing in SEP encumbered disputes or investigations into framework of Competition Law from competition authorities among different countries and lastly trying to present possibilities that F/RAND commitment as a cause of action under Contract Law can be applied as defense to overcome injunctive relief sought by F/RAND-encumbered SEP licensors. Meanwhile, this thesis is expected to provide Taiwanese companies valuable strategies to law suits or disputes involving F/RAND-encumbered SEPs.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
誌謝. IV
目錄. V
第一章、緒論 1
第一節、研究動機 1
第二節、研究目的 2
第三節、研究範圍 2
第四節、研究限制 2
第五節、研究架構 3
第二章、專利之排他權與禁制令救濟措施 5
第一節、專利制度之本質 5
第二節、專利之排他權 6
第三節、專利侵權之禁制令救濟 8
1. 美國 8
A. 聯邦地方法院 10
i. 暫時限制令（Temporary Restraining Order, TRO） 11
ii. 初步禁制令（Preliminary Injunction） 12
iii. 永久禁制令（Permanent Injunction） 14
B. 國際貿易委員會之排除命令 18
2. 德國 23
3. 其他國家 23
第四節、小結 26
第三章、技術標準制訂與標準必要專利 28
第一節、前言 28
第二節、標準化之優缺點 30
第三節、標準的形成 36
第四節、標準制訂組織與通訊相關標準 37
1. IEEE-SA 40
2. ITU-T 40
第五節、標準必要專利 41
第六節、標準制訂組織之智慧財產權政策 46
1. 共創、共享的專利使用政策 46
2. 專利資訊的揭露義務 49
3. 公平、合理與無歧視的授權政策 50
第四章、各國標準必要專利侵權訴訟之現況 53
第一節、前言 53
第二節、 F/RAND授權原則所衍生之問題 53
1. F/RAND授權原則 53
2. 技術標準制訂組織之角色與立場 56
3. F/RAND授權原則之實務上的爭議 58
第三節、各國標準必要專利相關之案例 59
1. 美國 62
A. 聯邦法院 62
i. Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.（依利諾州北區地方法院） 63
ii. Apple Inc. v Motorola Mobility, Inc.（威斯康辛西區聯邦地區法院)…74
iii. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc.（華盛頓西區聯邦地方法院） 82
iv. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp.（加州北區聯邦地方法院）87
v. 小結 92
B. 美國國際貿易委員會（ITC）發展近況 97
i. F/RAND授權原則與 ITC調查程序概述 99
a) 標準制定與FRAND授權原則承諾99
b) ITC調查程序100
ii. 標準必要專利ITC調查案的排除性救濟之核發 101
a) FRAND授權原則承諾本身並不阻卻排除性救濟措施的核發101
I. 行政法官拒絕 F/RAND授權原則相關抗辯102
（1） ITC調查案‘745（337-TA-745）102
（2） ITC調查案`752（337-TA-752）103
II. ITC目前針對 F/RAND議題最直接的裁定：（337-TA-794）106
b) 專利箝制（Hold-Up）和逆向阻擾（Reverse Hold-Up）109
I. 其他機構公開對於有F/RAND授權原則限制之標準必要專利在ITC調查程序下的權衡111
（1） 美國聯邦貿易委員會（Federal Trade Commission, FTC）的公眾利益聲明112
（2） 美國司法部（Department of Justice, DOJ）和美國專利商標局（U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO）政策聲明 美國總統否決權114
III. 後否決初步裁定：ITC調查案`868 (337-TA-868)115
c) ITC針對標準必要專利調查案核發排除令的現況116
iii. 在ITC調查案中有關F/RAND授權原則相關的抗辯 118
a) 默示授權（Implied License）119
b) 權利放棄（Waiver）119
c) 禁反言（Estoppel）119
d) 標準制定過程之不正當行為（Misconduct）導致專利無法實120
e) 專利濫用（Patent Misuse）120
iv. 小結 121
3. 歐洲國家 122
A. 德國 122
i. 橘皮書標準判例–F/RAND授權原則之抗辯 123
ii. 橘皮書標準判例在下級法庭之應用 125
B. 荷蘭 128
i. 禁制令核發 (Philips v SK-Kassetten) 129
ii. 禁制令未被核發 (LG Electronics v Sony) 129
C. 義大利 130
i. Philips v SK Kassetten 130
ii. Samsung v. Apple 131
D. 法國 131
i. Samsung v. Apple 131
ii. Ericsson v. TCL Mobile 132
E. 英國 132
i. Nokia v. IPCom 132
ii. Vringo v. ZTE 133
iii. Unwired Planet Int’l Ltd. v. Samsung et al. 133
4. 亞洲國家 134
A. 日本 (Samsung v. Apple) 134
B. 南韓 (Samsung v. Apple) 135
C. 中國 (Huawei v. InterDigital) 136
D. 印度 138
i. Ericsson v. Micromax 138
ii. Vringo v. ZTE 138
第五章、競爭法架構下之禁制令救濟於標準必要專利侵權訴訟的適用性 140
第一節、前言 140
第二節、美國 140
1. Apple v. Motorola案之聯邦法院意見 141
2. 美國法務部競爭法機關之調查行動 142
A. Google/Motorola 合併案 142
B. 針對Samsung之競爭法行為調查 142
3. FTC執行競爭法行動（Antitrust Enforcement Actions） 143
A. FTC Robert Bosch調查案 143
B. FTC Google/Motorola 調查案 144
C. FTC 執法行動（enforcement actions）的潛在影響 146
第三節、 歐洲地區 147
1. 歐盟委員會 （Commission of European Union, EC） 147
A. 歐盟對於濫用市場支配地位之立場 147
B. 歐盟委員會調查案 150
i. Motorola 調查案 150
ii. Samsung調查案 151
iii. 歐盟法院針對華為（Huawei）與中興通訊（ZTE）之德國專利訴訟提
出指導依據 152
a) 德國杜賽道夫法院向歐盟法院請求釋疑 152
b) 歐盟法院檢察長的裁決意見 154
c) 歐盟法院之正式判決 157
iv. 歐盟競爭法下的可能結果 159
v. 小結 160
2. 德國 161
3. 歐盟其他成員國 163
第四節、亞洲國家 163
1. 日本 163
2. 中國 164
3. 韓國 165
第六章、 結論與建議 167
第一節、 從司法管轄法院及競爭法主管機關方面來看 167
第二節、 從標準制訂組織及其智慧財產權政策方面來看 171
第三節、 從實務上面對標準必要專利訴訟來看 174
1. 各管轄法院判決與主管機關意見歸納 175
2. 標準必要專利侵權案件裡相關之不同當事人的影響 176
3. 實務上處理標準必要專利訴訟的建議思考方向 177
A. 不同管轄區域之法源依據的角度 177
B. 潛在被授權人/被控侵權人可評估之論點 178
C. 個案中當事人各自行為的細部環節 178
第四節、小結 180
參考文獻 167
附件一、標準制訂組織彙整表3-1 192
附件二、德國橘皮書標準判例流程圖 4-1 195		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1150683 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097961233en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 技術標準zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 專利侵權zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 標準制訂組織zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 禁制令zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 禁制令救濟zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 公平、合理且無歧視原則zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 競爭法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) patenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) infringementen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Competition Lawen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) standardizationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) standard essential patent; SEP; F/RAND; fair, reasonable and non-discriminatoryen_US
dc.title (題名) 技術標準必要專利與禁制令救濟之研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A Study of Injunctive Relief and Standard Essential Patent Infringementen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、 中文書籍

1. 曾陳明汝（2004年），兩岸暨歐美專利法，學林文化事業有限公司。
2. 曾陳明汝（1983年），專利商標法選論。
3. 黃文儀（1994年），申請專利範圍的解釋與專利侵害判斷。
4. 劉尚志、王敏銓、張宇樞與林明儀（2005年），Patent Wars 美台專利訴訟—實戰暨裁判解析。
5. 王本耀編譯（2004年），美國國際貿易委員會訴訟實務，財團法人亞太智慧財產權發展基金會。
6. 張美惠譯 (1999年)，資訊經營法則，(原作者: Carl Shapiro & Hal R Varian)，時報出版社。
7. 陳家駿、羅怡德(1999 年 11 月)，公平交易法與智慧財產權─以專利追索為中心，五南圖書出版有限公司。

二、 中文期刊/論文

1. 鄭中人（2004年5月），專利權之行使與定暫時狀態之處分，臺灣本土法學雜誌，第58期。
2. 馮震宇（2004年6月），從美國司法實務看台灣專利案件之假處分救濟，月旦法學，第109期。
3. 林修同（2008年1月號），美國專利實務與最近發展(一)，連展人-智權專欄。
4. 黃銘傑（2002年8月），專利集管與公平交易法，月旦法學 (No.87）。
5. 馮震字(2014年5月)，從美國專利發明法變革探討對未來專利訴訟之影響（2/3），行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫。
6. 張春飛（2008年），Wi-Fi技術的原理及未來發展趨勢，數字社區與智能家居，2008年11期。
7. 李素華（2008年4月），專利權行使與公平交易法-以近用技術標準之關鍵專利為中心，公平交易季刊，第16卷第2期。
8. 劉尚志、王俊凱（2006年1月），美國國際貿易委員會之專利紛爭與台灣企業因應之道，日新警察。
9. 陳家駿(1994年1月)，專利授權與之不公平競爭之不正當行為，法令月刊，第四十五卷第一期。
10. 陳起行(2007年3月)，由美國不正競爭法之排除適用探討智慧財產權法理念，政大法學評論，第五十七期。
11. 張勤敏（2006年7月），專利侵害民事救濟程序問題研究—以保全程序與證據調查為中心，清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
12. 李兆國(2003年)，標準制訂組織及標準專利權之爭議，交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
13. 陳俐妤(2014年)，標準必要專利權利金爭議之探討，政治大學科技管理與智慧財產權研究所碩士論文。
14. 全球專利訴訟案分析（2012年12月31日），通訊產業專利趨勢與專利訴訟分析研究計劃。
15. 陳怡妃（2006年7月），台灣及美國專利侵害損害賠償與立法效力之探討，交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
16. 劉孔中，Heinz Goddar，Christian W. Appelt與蔡季芬(2013年)，歐洲專利實務指南，翰蘆圖書出版。

三、 英文書籍

1. Herbert Hovenkamp, Mark D. Janis, Mark A. Lemley & Christopher R. Lesilie (2014), IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law (2nd ed.).
2. Donald S. Chisum, Craig Allen Nard, Herbert F. Schwartz, Pauline Newman & F. Scott Kieff (2004), Principles of Patent Law – Cases and Materials (3rd ed.)
3. Robert P. Merges, Peter S. Menell, Mark A. Lemley & Thomas M. Jorde (1997), Intellectual Property in the New Technology Age.
4. Steven Anderman & Hedvig Schmidt (2011), Eu Competition Law And Intellectual Property Rights The Regulation Of Innovation (2nd ed.)
5. Steven Anderman & Ariel Ezrachi (2011), Intellectual Property And Competition Law New Frontiors.

四、 英文期刊/論文

1. Carl Shapiro (2001), “Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting”, Innovation Policy and the Economy Vol. I MIT Press.
2. Michael W. Carroll (2007), Patent Injunctions and the Problem of Uniformity Cost, 13 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. 421, 437.
3. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro (2009), Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, Texas Law Review Vol. 85: 1991, 1993.
4. Mark A. Lemley (2002), Intellectual Property Rights and Standard Setting Organizations, California Law Review Vol. 90:1889.
5. J. Gregory Sidak (2013), The Meaning of FRAND, Part I: Royalties, 9 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 931.
6. Richard A. Posner (2005), Intellectual Property: The Law and Economics Approach, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 19, Number 2.
7. David B. Conrad (2006), Minig the Patent Thicket: The Supreme Court’s Rejection of The Automatic Injunction rule in eBay v. MercExchange, 26 REVLITIG 119.
8. James J. Lisak (2006), An Analysis of Ebay, Inc. v. MercExchange L.L.C.: Patenting Gone Away, 19, LOY. CONSUMER L. REV. 70.
9. John Flock, (2011), Protecting Ip Rights In International Business Transactions, Aspatore.
10. Mario Mariniello (2011), Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Terms: A Challenge for Competition Authorities, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, doi: 10.1093/joclec/nhr010.
11. Dennis W. Carlton & Allan L. Shampine (2013), An Economic Interpretation of FRAND, Journal of Competitino Law & Economics, doi:10.1093/joclec/nht019.
12. Joseph Kattan (2013), FRAND Wars and Section 2, Vol. 27(3) Antitrust 30.
13. Rudi Bekkers & Arianna Martinelli (2012), Knowledge positions in high-tech markets: Trajectories, standards, strategies and true innovators, 79 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1192, doi: 10.1016/j.
14. Jonathan L. Rubin (2007), The IP Grab: The Struggle Between Intellectual Property Rights and Antitrust: Patents, Antitrust, and Rivalry in Standard-Setting, 38 RUTGERS L.J. 509.
15. Joseph Farrel, John Hayes, Carl Shapiro & Theresa Sullivan (2007), Standard Setting, Patent, and Hold-Up, 74 ANTITRUST L.J. 603.
16. Francois Leveque & Yann Ménière (June 2010), Vagueness in RAND Licensing Obligations is Unreasonable for Patent Owners (June 2010), CERNA Working paper Series 2009-04.
17. Kai-Uwe Kühn, Fiona Scott Morton & Howard Shelanski (March 05, 2013), Standard Setting Organizations Can Help Solve the Standard Essential Patents Licensing Problem, CPI Antitrust Chronicle.

五、 判決

1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
2. New York City v. Pine, 185 U.S. 93,108（1902)
3. Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., 2012 WL 5416941, *15 W.D. Wisc. Oct. 29, 2012
4. Foster v. Am. Mach. & Foundry Co., 492 F.2d 1317, 1324 (2d Cir. 1974)
5. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F. 3d 1370, 1375 Fed. Cir. 2012
6. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc., No. C10-1823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Nov. 30, 2012)
7. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 951, 986 (N.D. Cal. 2009)
8. Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 592 F. Supp. 2d 727, 748 & n.10 (D. Del. 2009)
9. Eastern R. Conference v. Noerr Motors, 365 U.S. 127 (1961)
10. United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965)
11. California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972)
12. Negotiated-Data Solution LLC FTC No 051 0094 (2008).
13. Robert Bosch GmbH, FTC File No. 121-0081, Docket No. C-4377
14. Cont`l Paper Bag Co. v. E. Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 422 (1908)
15. Smith Int’l., Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 718 F.2d 1573, 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 686 , (Fed. Cir.1983)
16. Oakley Inc. v. Sunglass Hut International, 316 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
17. Jeffrey Milstein, Inc. v. Greger, Lawlor, Roth, Inc. 58 F.3d 27, 31, 35 u.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1284, 1286 (2d Cir. 1995)
18. High Tech Med. Instrumentation Inc. v. New Image Indus. Inc., 49 F.3d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
19. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 320, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91.
20. Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 868 F.2d 1226, 1247, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1913, 1929 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
21. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (U.S., 2006).
22. Hyundai Elects. Indus. Co. v. U.S. Int`l Trade Comm`n, 899 F.2d 1204, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
23. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp, 5:12-cv-03451-RMW
24. German Federal Supreme Court, November 23, 2000, doc. no. I ZR 93/98
25. IPCom v. Nokia, (District Court of Dusseldorf, April 24, 2012, doc. no. 4b 273/10)
26. IPCom v. HTC, (District Court of Mannheim, July 2, 2009, doc. no.7 O 94/08)
27. Navitaire Inc v. Easyjet Airline Co, [2004] EWHC 1725 (Ch)
28. Shelfer v.City of London Electric Lighting Co, [1895] 1 Ch 287
29. Broadcom Corp v Qualcomm Inc 501 F 3d 297 (3d Cir 2007)
30. Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486US492 (1988).
31. Spansion, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 629 F.3d 1331, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
32. Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Table Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-794
33. Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-868
34. Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-745
35. Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-800
36. Orange Book Standard, (German Federal Supreme Court, May 6, 2009, doc. no. KZR 39/06)
37. Philips v. SonyEricsson, (District Court of Mannheim, May 27, 2011, doc. no. 7 O 65/10).
38. Motorola v. Apple, (Court of Appeal in Karlsruhe, February 27, 2012, doc. no. 6 U 136/11).
39. IPCom v. Nokia, (District Court of Mannheim, February 18, 2011, doc. no. 7 O 100/10)
40. IPCom v. Nokia, (District Court of Dusseldorf, April 24, 2012, doc. no. 4b O 273/10)
41. Motorola v. Microsoft, (District Court of Mannheim, May 2, 2012, doc. no. 2 O 240/11)
42. Philips v. SonyEricsson, (District Court of Mannheim, May 27, 2011, doc. no. 7 O 65/10)
43. Motorola v. Apple,(District Court of Mannheim, December 9, 2011, doc. no. 7 O 122/11)
44. Huawei v. ZTE, (District Court of Dusseldorf, March 21, 2013, 4b chamber)
45. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v SK Kassetten GmbH & Co. KG, Rechtbank `s-Gravenhage, 17 March 2010, Docket n°: 316533 / HA ZA 08-2522 and 316535 / HA ZA 08-2524
46. Sony Supply Chain Solutions (Europe) B.V. and LG Electronics, Inc., Rechtbank `s-Gravenhage, 10 March 2011, Docket n°: 389067 / KG ZA11-269
47. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc. et. al., Rechtbank `s-Gravenhage, 14 March 2012, Docket n°: 400367 / HA ZA 11-2212, 400376 / HA ZA 11-2213 and 400385 / HA ZA 11-2215
48. Koninklijke Philips Electronic N.V. v. Computer Support Italcard s.r.l. Court of Genoa, 7 May 2004, 14 October 2004 and 15 November 2004
49. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, and Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.a. v. Apple Inc. et. al., Tribunale de Milano, Court Order of 5 January 2012, N.R.G. 45629-1-2011 and N.R.G.59734-2011
50. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics France v. Apple France S.A.R.L., Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, France, 8 December 2011, Case No. 11/58301
51. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. TCT Mobile Europe SAS and TCT Mobile International Ltd., Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 29 November 2013, Docket № 12/14922.
52. Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Company and Meux’s Brewery Company v. City of London Electric Lighting Company, [1895] 1 Ch. 287
53. Nokia Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co. KG, [2012] EWHC 1446 (Ch)
54. Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., et. al., [2013] EWHC 1591 (Pat)
55. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et. al. v. Apple Japan, Inc., et. al., and Apple Inc. et. al. v. Samsung JapanCorp., et. al., Tokyo District Court, 28 February 2013, Cases nos Tokyo District Ct. 2011 (YO) 22027, 2011(YO) 22098, and Case no. 2011 (WA) 38969.
56. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Korea Ltd, Seoul Central District Court, 24 August 2012, Case no. 2011 GaHap 39552
57. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Micromax Informatics Ltd. and Mercury Electronics Ltd., High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Court order of 6 March 2013, Docket no. C.S. (OS) 442/2013.
58. Micromax Informatics Ltd. and Mercury Electronics Ltd. V. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, High Court ofDelhi at New Delhi, Court order of 12 March 2013, Docket no. FAO(OS) 143/2013.
59. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Micromax Informatics Ltd. and Mercury Electronics Ltd., High Court ofDelhi at New Delhi, Court order of 6 March 2013, Docket no. C.S. (OS) 442/2013.
60. Vringo Infrastructure, Inc., v. ZTE Corp., et. al., High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Court order of November 8, 2013, Docket no. CS(OS) 2168/2013
61. ZTE Corp., et. al. v. Vringo Infrastructure, Inc., High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Court order of December 12, 2013, Docket no. FAO(OS) 573/2013, CAV. 1141/2013, C.M. APPL. 19754/2013 and 19755/2013.
62. EC, MEMO/12/1021 “Samsung – Enforcement of ETSI standards essential patents (SEPs),” [December 12, 2012].
63. ECJ, Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-170/13, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH [20 November, 2014]
64. ECJ, Case C-170/13, Huawei Technologiws Co. Ltd. V, ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland GmbH [16 July, 2015].
65. EC, Case No COMP/M.6381,– Google/Motorola Mobility [February 13, 2012].
66. Samsung v. Apple (District Court of The Hague, March 14, 2012, doc. no. 400367/HA ZA 11-2212)

六、 其他參考資料

1. RosettaNet, http://www.rosettanet.org/ip.
2. 陳智超，論專利權之效力，經濟部智慧財產局—專利商品化網站，取自 http://pcm.tipo.gov.tw/Pcm/pro_show.asp?sn=46。
3. 鄭惇文，美國國際貿易委員會(ITC)簡介以及其對專利實務之影響，冠亞智財，取自http://www.gainia.com/front/bin/ptdetail.phtml?Category=100016&Part=124.
4. Open Mobile Alliance IPR Procedural Guidelines, http://openmobilealliance.org/about-oma/policies-and-terms-of-use/intellectual-property-rights/.
5. IEEE Standard Association, PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERING WHETHER IEEE SHOULD FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF ON ISSUES AFFECTING THE STANDARDS ASSOCIATION, retrived from https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/amicus.pdf.
6. 孫遠釗(2013年8月29日)，保護主義抑或捍衛競爭？評美國總統否決聯邦國際貿易委員會對蘋果產品的判定，取自http://www.uipex.com/monpub_show.aspx?ID=MP13082913482153。
7. 陳宜誠(2013年1月16日)，標準關鍵專利與禁制令的執行（上），取自http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/publish-42.htm。
8. 最高人民法院知識產權案件報告(2008)，取自http://www.chinalaw.gov.cn/article/fgkd/xfg/sfwj/201012/20101200330568.shtml。
9. 華為訴美國IDC終審：IDC敗訴賠兩千萬，取自http://mag.chinareviewnews.com/crn-webapp/touch/detail.jsp?coluid=10&kindid=0&docid=102828999。
10. 國家工商總局公布《關於禁止濫用知識產權排除、限制競爭行為的規定》，取自
http://www.saic.gov.cn/zwgk/zyfb/zjl/fld/201504/t20150413_155103.html。
11. ETSI, Annex 6: ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy,ETSI Rule of Procedure (November 19, 2014), retrived from http://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-ipr-policy.pdf.
12. Esteban Burrone, Standards, Intellectual Property Rights（IPRs）and Standards-setting Process, World Intellectual Property Organization, retrived from http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_standards_fulltext.html.
13. IEEE, IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws (2015), http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sb_bylaws.pdf.
14. J. Gregory Sidak, Chairman CRITERION E CONOMICS (January 28, 2015), Re Business Review Letter for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Concerning Proposed Bylaw Amendments Affecting FRAND Licensing of Standard-Essential Patents, retrieved from https://www.criterioneconomics.com/docs/proposed_ieee_bylaw_amendments_affecting_frand_licensing_of_seps.pdf.
15. Letter from Renata B. Hesse, Acting Assistant Attorney Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Michael A. Lindsey, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney LLP (Feb. 2, 2015), retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/311470.htm.
16. Jones Day (2014), Standards-Essential Patents and Injunctive Relief, retrieved from http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/77a53dff-786c-442d-8028-906e1297060b/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/270fc132-6369-4063-951b-294ca647c5ed/Standards-Essential%20Patents.pdf.
17. Apple, Google settle smartphone patent litigation (May 16, 2014), Reuters, retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/16/us-apple-google-settlement-idUSBREA4F0S020140516.
18. The Federal Trade Commission’s Statement on the Public Interest in Inv. No. 337-TA-745, retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/advocacy_documents/ftc-comment-united-states-international-trade-commission-concerning-certain-wireless-communication/1206ftcwirelesscom.pdf.
19. DOJ/USPTO Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments (January 8, 2013), retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/about/offices/ogc/Final_DOJ-PTO_Policy_Statement_on_FRAND_SEPs_1-8-13.pdf.
20. Letter from USTR Michael Froman RE: Disapproval of the U.S. International Trade Commission’s Determination in the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, Investigation No. 337-TA-794, (August 3, 2014). retrieved from https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF.
21. U.S. Department of Justice (February 13, 2012), Statement of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division on Its Decision toClose Its Investigations of Google Inc.’s Acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. and the Acquisitions of Certain Patents by Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd., retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/February/12-at-210.html .
22. U.S. Department of Justice (February 7, 2014), Statement of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division on Its Decision toClose Its Investigation of Samsung’s Use of Its Standards-Essential Patents, retrived from http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/February/14-at-129.html.
23. Elizabeth Woyke (2011). Identifying the Tech Leaders in LTE Wireless Patents, Forbes, retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethwoyke/2011/09/21/identifying-the-tech-leaders-in-lte-wireless-patents/.
24. Randal C. Miller (October 23, 2014), FRAND at the International Trade Commission, AIPLA Annual Meeting.		zh_TW