English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 74911/106084 (71%)
造訪人次 : 19412534      線上人數 : 345
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧:
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號",以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋,建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位,可獲得較完整資料
  • 進階搜尋
    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/109716


    題名: 專利交易之契約理論與登記制度之研究
    作者: 宋皇志
    貢獻者: 科技管理與智慧財產研究所
    關鍵詞: 專利;專屬授權;全部實質權利;專利侵權訴訟;訴訟實施權;專利讓與;讓與登記
    patent;patent license;all substantial rights;patent infringement litigation;standing to sue;patent assignment;recordaition
    日期: 2016
    上傳時間: 2017-05-17 16:08:34 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 對於專利專屬授權,吾人向來認為專屬被授權人必得以自己名義提起侵權訴訟。然而新近美國學說與實務見解顯示,專利專屬授權契約倘未將專利之「全部實質權利(all substantial rights)」移轉予被授權人,則專屬被授權人依然欠缺單獨起訴之權。學理上困難之處在於如何認定全部實質權利?專屬授權契約應包含何等條款方能將全部實質權利移轉予被授權人?等,都是相當值得研究之課題。本文對美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院之判決進行研究,發現法院判決皆僅對個案所涉契約進行有無訴訟實施權之判斷,尚未勾勒出通盤全面之判斷準則。對此,本文依據實證研究結果,分析歸納出確保專屬被授權人訴訟實施權之必要條款與應避免條款,希冀能做為學術界與實務界之參考。本文並藉此反思我國法,經分析後發現我國專利法中對於專利專屬授權之定義不夠完整與細緻,且未規定當專屬被授權人取得提起侵權訴訟之資格時,專利權人是否還能提起侵權訴訟。本文經由比較法研究並參酌著作權法之立法後,謹提出二點建議:(一)專利法中宜針對專屬授權進一步定義,規範構成專利專屬授權之必要條款與應避免條款,且規範上最好能與國際接軌;(二)宜修法明定當專屬被授權人取得訴訟實施權時,專利權人不得單獨起訴,若欲起訴僅能參與被授權人所提訴訟做為共同原告

    It’s a well-accepted concept that the exclusive patent licensees have the standing to sue for patent infringement independently without joining the patentees. However, the recent academic and prudential opinions in the U.S. stated that an exclusive licensee lacks standing to bring suit if
    the licensing agreement does not transfer the patent’s all substantial rights. This article thinks that these recent opinions in the U.S. can be explained by the “act of disposition” of the exclusive agreement, but it’s a problem to identify what all substantial rights are. This article conducted an empirical study on the recent judgments of U.S Supreme Court and Federal Circuit, finding that the standing issue derived from patent transactions was considered case by case but no general rule was established by the courts. On the ground of the empirical study, this article analyzed and concluded the necessary and prohibitive provisions of the patent exclusive
    agreements to ensure the transfer of all substantial rights. In addition, the recent academic and prudential opinions in the U.S. were also applied to review the Taiwan’s Patent Law, finding that its provisions relating to patent exclusive license are not complete and precise enough. After conducting a comparative study, this article suggests a patent law amendment in the following two
    aspects: (1) the patent exclusive license should be well-
    defined in the Patent Law, including the necessary and prohibitive provisions of the patent exclusive agreements to ensure the transfer of all substantial rights; and (2) the patentee should have no more standing to sue for infringement independently if the exclusive licensee has obtained the standing to sue independently, but the
    patentee could still bring sue by joining the exclusive licensee.
    關聯: MOST 104-2410-H-004-079
    資料類型: report
    顯示於類別:[科技管理研究所] 國科會研究計畫

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    104-2410-H-004-079.pdf1040KbAdobe PDF62檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋