English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91280/121421 (75%)
Visitors : 25400018      Online Users : 75
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/109716

    Title: 專利交易之契約理論與登記制度之研究
    Authors: 宋皇志
    Contributors: 科技管理與智慧財產研究所
    Keywords: 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
    Date: 2016
    Issue Date: 2017-05-17 16:08:34 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 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.
    Relation: MOST 104-2410-H-004-079
    Data Type: report
    Appears in Collections:[科技管理研究所] 國科會研究計畫

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    104-2410-H-004-079.pdf1040KbAdobe PDF356View/Open

    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback