English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 88295/117812 (75%)
Visitors : 23401144      Online Users : 161
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/140.119/49748


    Title: 論專利侵害之損害賠償計算-─從美國、中國大陸與台灣之專利修法談起
    Damages calculation in patent infringement-perspectives of patent reforms in the United States, China and Taiwan
    Authors: 李柏靜
    Lee, Po Ching
    Contributors: 馮震宇
    Fong, Jerry G.
    李柏靜
    Lee, Po Ching
    Keywords: 損害賠償
    懲罰性損害賠償
    專利侵權
    侵犯專利
    故意侵害
    損害賠償計算
    damages
    punitive damages
    increased damages
    patent infringement
    willful infringement
    damages calculation
    Date: 2008
    Issue Date: 2010-12-08 17:52:51 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 為了專利法制現代化,美國、中國大陸與台灣均進行專利修法,並修訂損害賠償計算。本文試圖以三者修法目的為思考評析損害賠償計算之修訂,並類型化分析三者相關規範。本文探討美國司法實務所發展的分攤法則及整體市場價值法則,而在建立更有效率之專利制度的目標下,美國專利法第284條並不適合納入上述法則。本文歸納美國專利懲罰性損害賠償制度之三種認定故意的標準。第一,傳統的故意侵害論,Underwater Devices案「充分注意之確切義務」之標準為故意侵害設立了一個較低的門檻,比較類似過失。第二,Seagate案的故意侵害論,為客觀的輕率。第三,專利改革的故意侵害論,三種故意樣態下之客觀的輕率;但可能因此限制法官的裁量權。中國大陸在提高自主創新能力與建設創新型國家之知識產權戰略目標下,第三次專利法修正將於2009年施行。新專利法第65條將現行最高人民法院司法解釋規定的定額賠償提高到專利法層次,且提高法定額度。從訴訟成本考量,由法院定額不失為較經濟的方法;然而,此方法亦有可能會有因非根據證據而落入主觀判斷賠償數額的缺點。新專利法第65條並明訂賠償數額還應當包括權利人為制止侵權行為所支付的合理開支,惟其計量方法仍不明確。雖然新專利法沒有納入懲罰性損害賠償,於提高法定賠償額度與加重其他相關民事與行政責任之配套修改下,新專利法有提高侵權人金錢負擔的效果,應有較大的嚇阻功能,進而鼓勵創新。台灣在因應國內科技政策與國際規範發展,及配合智慧財產法院設立的背景下,提出專利法修正草案,其中建議現行專利法第85條新增「以相當於實施該發明專利所得收取之權利金數額為其損害」規定。然而,針對權利金的合理性及是否以合理權利金作為補償底限,修正草案並沒有明確規定。此外,修正草案建議刪除懲罰性損害賠償,以回歸我國民事損害賠償制度。台灣專利侵害民事訴訟的成本與賠償金額並不高,也沒有敗訴方負擔對方律師費用的規定,在專利侵害全面除罪化之後,懲罰性損害賠償對侵害人可能形成一種「實質上額外的風險」,而非「僅是一種商業上的成本」,因而有其一定的功能意義。以專利法促進產業發展的目的考量,若沒有相關配套措施,實可考慮繼續保留現行懲罰性損害賠償制度。
    For modernization of patent laws, the United States, China and Taiwan are undergoing patent reform, each amending its damages provision. This thesis categorized forms of damages calculation in three countries, and tried to analyze its amendment from the perspective of patent reform in each country. This thesis analyzed the possible impact of specifying the apportionment rule and entire market value rule in Section 284, 35 United State Code. In addition, three standards of willful infringement with enhanced damages were concluded. First, the traditional willfulness doctrine in Underwater Devices case is the affirmative duty of due care which sets a lower threshold of willing infringement that is more akin to negligence. Second, willfulness in Seagate case requires at least an objective recklessness. Third, willfulness in Patent Reform Act of 2009 requires an objective recklessness in three different conditions; such proposal may restrict the discretion of the court. With national intellectual property strategy to improve the domestic capacity of innovation and to build an innovative country, the third amendment to Patent Act of the People's Republic of China becomes in effect in 2009. Article 65 in the new Chinese Patent Act codifies the statutory damages in the range of RMB 10,000 to 1,000,000, compared to the current range of RMB 5,000 to 500,000 provided by the Supreme People’s Court judicial interpretation. In the perspective of litigation costs, statutory damages award may be a more economic approach but subjective judgment could have implication caused by lack of factual evidence for damages calculation. Article 65 also codifies that the amount of compensation shall include reasonable cost for ceasing patent infringement by the right holder, however, how to measure the reasonable cost is not clear. Although the new Chinese Patent Act does not include punitive damages, the maximum statutory damages, other related civil liability and administrative penalty are increased. Such amendments may increase the pecuniary burden of the infringer and expect to lead to more deterrent effect on patent infringement and encourage innovation. In the context of international regulation change, national technology policy change and establishment of professional Intellectual Property Court, comprehensive review of Taiwanese Patent Act is ongoing. The proposed bill adds “equivalent amount of royalty for implementing the patent invention as damages” into Article 85 of current Taiwanese Patent Act. However, it is not clearly codified that a reasonable royalty must be justified and such royalty calculation is to set a floor for damages award. The proposed bill abandons punitive damages for willful infringement. In such proposal, the result of willful infringement may not be a substantial additional risk but only a cost of doing business, because the litigation cost and damages award are not so high, and there is no attorney fee award or criminal penalty in Taiwanese patent regulation system. Hence, reconsideration of retaining punitive damages is suggested.
    Reference: 一、繁體中文
    1. 王千維,民事損害賠償責任法上因果關係之結構以及損害賠償之基本原則,政大法學評論,60期,1998年12月。
    2. 王文杰,嬗變中之中國大陸法制,2004年。
    3. 何俞宛,智慧財產權間重複賠償問題之研究,世新大學法學院碩士論文,2007年7月。
    4. 李柏靜,評析美國專利改革法案-以提升專利品質為目的的思考,世新法學,2卷1號,2008年12月。
    5. 李鎂,大陸專利侵權責任解析,智慧財產權,60期,2002年4月。
    6. 周漢威,論專利侵權損害賠償之範圍及計算-專利權人所失利益之界定,銘傳大學法律學系碩士論文,2005年6月。
    7. 馬維麟,損害賠償法之原理-我國最高法院歷年來判決之檢討與分析-,法學叢刊,161期,1996年。
    8. 張宇樞,美國與我國於侵害專利權損害賠償範圍之探討,科技法學評論,2卷1期,2005年。
    9. 張容綺,專利侵害損害賠償制度之檢討與重構—以美國法作為比較基準--,世新大學法學院碩士論文,2005年6月。
    10. 梁實秋主編,最新英漢字典,1983年。
    11. 許忠信,從德國法之觀點看我國專利權侵害之損害賠償責任,台北大學法學論叢,61期,2007年3月。
    12. 陳聰富,美國法上之懲罰性賠償金制度,收錄於陳聰富、陳忠五、沈冠伶、許仕宦合著,美國懲罰性賠償金判決之承認及執行,2004年12月。
    13. 曾世雄,詹森林續著,損害賠償法原理,2005年10月,2版4刷。
    14. 曾陳明汝,兩岸暨歐美專利法,2004年2月,修訂再版。
    15. 馮博生、王仲,論侵害智慧財產之損害賠償方法,法律評論,59卷7、8期合刊,1993年8月。
    16. 黃銘傑,專利侵權損害賠償訴訟「故意、過失」之要否與損害額之計算方式-評最高法院九十三年度台上字第二二九二號判決,月旦法學雜誌,128期,2006年1月。
    17. 馮震宇,美國專利訴訟制度與程序要件,資訊法務透析,1995年8月號,1995年8月。
    18. 馮震宇,論侵害專利權之民事責任與民事救濟,法學叢刊,161期,1996年1月。
    19. 溫麗琪編譯,法律經濟學,Law and Economics,Robert Cooter and Thomas Ulen原著,2003年6月。
    20. 雷雅雯,侵害專利權之民事責任與救濟,司法研究年報第23輯第2篇,2003年11月。
    21. 熊誦梅,法官辦理專利侵權民事訴訟手冊,司法研究年報第23輯第4篇,2003年11月。
    22. 劉尚志、王文杰、陳建宏,中國專利侵權損害賠償之實證研究,2008年全國科技法律研討會論文集,2008年11月。
    23. 蔡明城,發明專利法研究,2000年3月。
    24. 蔡明誠,專利侵權要件及損害賠償計算,2008年3月,初版3刷。
    25. 鄭中人,專利法規釋義,2009年3月。
    26. 鄭中人,智慧財產權法導讀,2008年6月。
    27. 羅炳榮,工業財產權論叢-基礎篇-,2004年6月。
    二、簡體中文
    1. 卜红梅,我国知识产权侵权损害赔偿制度完善之探讨,新疆公安司法管理干部学院学报,83期,2001年。
    2. 王学峰,论知识产权侵权引入惩罚性赔偿责任制度,北京航空航天大学学报,19卷1期,2006年。
    3. 庄秀峰,保护知识产权应增设惩罚性赔偿,法学杂志,134期,2002年。
    4. 国家知识产权局条法司,尹新天主编,新专利法详解,知识产权出版社,2002年3月。
    5. 最高人民法院民事审判第三庭编着,曹建明主编,新专利法司法解释精解,2002年1月。
    6. 温世扬、邱永清,惩罚性赔偿与知识产权保护,法律适用月刊,225期,2004年12月。
    7. 程永顺,中国专利诉讼,知识产权出版社,2005年5月。
    8. 程永顺,专利纠纷与处理,知识产权出版社,2006年9月。
    9. 程永顺主编,知识产权裁判文书集(第五卷),2003年4月。
    10. 程永顺主编,专利权纠纷案件法官点评,2007年2月。
    11. 程宗璋,论惩罚性损害赔偿判决之适用,青岛化工学院学报,53期,2000年。
    12. 张爱军,对惩罚性赔偿之反对观点的评析,太原理工大学学报,21卷2期,2003年。
    13. 汤宗舜,专利法解说,2002年7月。
    14. 谢晓尧,惩罚性赔偿:一个激励的观点,学术研究,2004年第6期,2004年。
    三、英文
    1. Bensen Eric E. and White Danielle M., Using Apportionment to Rein in the Georgia-Pacific Factors, 9 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev.1, 2007.
    2. Black Henry Campbell, Black's Law Dictionary, Garner Bryan A. (ed.), 8th ed. 2004.
    3. Blair Roger and Cotter Thomas, Intellectual Property: Economic and Legal Dimensions of Rights and Remedies, 2005.
    4. Bloebaum Scott, Past the Tipping Point: Reforming the Role of Willfulness in the Federal Circuit's Doctrine of Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement, 9 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 139, 2007.
    5. Chisum Donald S., Nard Craig Allen, Schwartz Herbert F., Newman Pauline, and Kieff F. Scott, Principles of Patent Law, 2001.
    6. Daniel B.D., The Right of Trial by Jury in Patent Infringement Cases, 28 Rev. Litig. 735, 2009.
    7. Das Kaustuv M., Willful Infringement, Waiver, and Advice of Counsel: A Sea Change at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 89 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 853, 2007.
    8. Ferguson Brian, Seagate Equals Sea Change: The Federal Circuit Establishes a New Test for Proving Willful Infringement and Reserves the Sanctity of the Attorney-Client Privilege, 24 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 167, 2007.
    9. Landers Amy, Let the Games Begin: Incentives to Onnovatives to Innovation in the New Economy of Intelectual Property Law, 46 Santa Clara L. Rev. 307, 2006.
    10. Lewis Ian, “Intellectual property litigation, liability insurance, issues and solutions”, in Valuing Intellectual Property in Japan, Britain and the United States (Ruth Taplin ed.), RoutledgeCurzon, 2004
    11. Love Brain J., Patentee Overcompensation and the Entire Market Rule, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 263, 2007.
    12. Merges Robert P., and John F. Duffy, Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials, 2003.
    13. Merges Robert P., Peter S. Menell, and Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property in the New Technology Age, 2003.
    14. Moore Kimberly, Empirical Statistics on Willful Patent Infringement, 14 Fed. Cir. Bar J. 227, 2004.
    15. Schwartz Herbert F., Patent Law and Practice, 2006.
    16. Schwartz Victor E., Kelly Kathryn, and Partlett David F., Prosser, Wade and Schwartz's Torts, 2005.
    17. Sung Lawrence M., Patent Infringement Remedies, in Intellectual Property and Information Wealth, Volume 2, Peter K. Yu (ed), 2007.
    四、判決
    (一)台灣
    1. 台灣高等法院90年度上字第738號
    2. 台灣高等法院93年度上易字第8號
    3. 智慧財產法院97年度民專上易字第4號
    4. 最高法院48年台上字第1934號判例
    5. 最高法院52年台上字第2139號判例
    6. 最高法院93年度台上字第2292號
    (二)中國大陸
    1. 北京市第二中级人民法院,(2008)二中民初字第15043号
    2. 北京市第二中级人民法院,(2009)二中民初字第3436号
    3. 成都市中级人民法院,(2001)成知初字第13号
    4. 杭州市中级人民法院,(2000)杭经初字第20号
    5. 重庆市高级人民法院,(2000)渝高法知终字第10号
    6. 湖北省武汉市中级人民法院,(2008)武知初字第268号
    (三)美國
    1. Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1964)
    2. Beatrice Foods Co. v. New England Printing & Lithographing Co. 923 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
    3. BIC Leisure Prods. v. Windsurfing Int'l, 1 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
    4. Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1876)
    5. Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corporation, 543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
    6. Cornell University v. Hewlett-Packard Company, No. 01-CV-1974 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2009)
    7. Coupe v. Royer, 155 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1895)
    8. Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelecs. Int'l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
    9. Duplate Corp. v. Triplex Safety Glass Co., 298 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1936)
    10. eBay Inc v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006)
    11. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 72 F.3d 857, 866, 37 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
    12. Fromson v. Western Litho Plate and Supply Co., 853 F.2d 1568 (Fed.Cir.1988)
    13. Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120 (1884)
    14. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)
    15. Georgia-Pacific Corp., v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), modified, 446 F. 2d 295 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 870 (1970)
    16. Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 185 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
    17. Hanson v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc., 718 F.2d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
    18. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
    19. In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
    20. Jurgens v. CBK Ltd., 80 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
    21. King Instruments Corp. v. Perego, 65 F.3d 941 (Fed.Cir.1995)
    22. Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 713 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
    23. Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
    24. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)
    25. Lam, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp., 718 F.2d 1056 (Fed.Cir.1983)
    26. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996)
    27. Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., 527 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
    28. Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007)
    29. Micro Chem. v. Lextron, Inc., 318 F.3d 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
    30. Minco, Inc. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., 95 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
    31. Monsanto Company v. Homan McFarling, 488 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
    32. Nike Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 138 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
    33. Oiness v. Walgreen Co., 88 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
    34. Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works,Inc., 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978)
    35. Paper Converting Machine Co. v. Magna-Graphics Corp., 745 F.2d 11 (Fed.Cir.1984)
    36. Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Co., 324 U.S. 806 (1945)
    37. Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
    38. Riles v. Shell Exploration & Prod. Co., 298 F .3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
    39. Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
    40. Rite-Hite Corporation, v. Kelley Company, Inc., 819 F.2d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
    41. Rude v. Westcott, 130 U.S. 152 (1889)
    42. Seymour v. McCormick, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 480 (1853)
    43. Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
    44. Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
    45. State Industries, Inc. v. Mor-Flo Industries, Inc., 883 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
    46. Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. v. Dart Indus., Inc., 862 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
    47. The Suffolk Company v. Hayden, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 315, (1865)
    48. Underwater Devices v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717 F.2d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
    49. Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp, 236 F.3d 684 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
    50. Unisplay, S.A. v. American Elec. Sign Co., 69 F.3d 512 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
    51. Westinghouse Elec. Co. v. Wagner Elec. Co., 225 U.S. 604 (1912)
    五、網路資料
    (一)繁體中文
    1. 郭土木,期貨交易詐欺及內線交易行為之探討(上),證管雜誌,2000年2月,http://web.fsc.gov.tw/Layout/main_ch/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=2259&guid=0f807f4b-67c4-4e4c-ad7f-bae3b9eb7832&lang=zh-tw,最後查訪日:2009/07/30。
    2. 陳春山,不實財務報告之民事責任法律適用爭議,證管雜誌,2004年6月,http://web.fsc.gov.tw/Layout/main_ch/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=1139&guid=5c9cd53d-b24f-45dd-a559-6d7b5475a3f1&lang=zh-tw,最後查訪日:2009/07/30。
    3. 經濟部智慧財產局,專利侵權修法相關議題諮詢會議紀錄,http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID=3294,最後查訪日:2008/11/30。
    4. 經濟部智慧財產局(彙總),專利法修正草案公聽會各界意見及研復結果彙整表,http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID=3721,最後查訪日:2009/07/30。
    5. 經濟部智慧財產局,專利法修正草案,980526公聽會版本,http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID=3721,最後查訪日:2009/07/01。
    6. 經濟部智慧財產局,專利侵害鑑定要點,http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=819&guid=af253442-f923-4ee3-9606-a2f8e691806d&lang=zh-tw,最後查訪日:2009/04/16。
    7. 經濟部智慧財產局,專利侵權修法相關議題,97/10/31會議資料,http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID=3261,最後查訪日:2009/07/30。
    (二)簡體中文
    1. 中华人民共和国主席令第八号,http://big5.gov.cn/gate/big5/www.gov.cn/flfg/2008-12/28/content_1189755.htm,最后查访日:2009/07/30。
    2. 全国人民代表大会,全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于修改《中华人民共和国专利法》的决定,http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/lfgz/2008-12/27/content_1465318.htm,最后查访日:2009/07/30。
    3. 全国人民代表大会,专利法修正案草案全文及说明,2008年8月29日,中国人大网(www.npc.gov.cn),http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/lfgz/2008-08/29/content_1447388.htm,最后查访日:2009/07/01。
    4. 最高人民法院,最高人民法院关于审理侵犯专利权纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的解释(征求意见稿),http://www.chinacourt.org/wsdc/index.php?id=361606,最后查访日:2009/07/30。
    (三)英文
    1. Act of July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 813,Historical and Rvision Notes, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t33t36+1577+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2835%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28284%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20, last visit: 2009/01/30.
    2. An Act to promote the progress of useful arts, Ch. 7,1st Congress (April 10, 1790), in Statutes at Large, 1789-1875, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=19; last visit: 2009/06/01.
    3. Cauley Richard, Patent Reform 2009: More on Damages, Patently-O, March 13, 2009, http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/03/patent-reform-2009-more-on-damages.html, last visit: .2009/06/30.
    4. Crouch Dennis, Patent Reform 2009: Damages, Patently-O, March 3, 2009, http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/03/patent-reform-2009-damages.html, last visit: .2009/06/30.
    5. Dudas Jon W., Patent Reform: The Future of American Innovation, Statement of Jon W. Dudas Under Secretary of Commerce of Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, June 6, 2007, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/2007jun06.htm, last visit: 2008/11/11.
    6. European Commission, IPR Helpdesk, http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/documentos/docsPublicacion/html_xml/8_GracePeriodinventionLaw%5B0000004514_00%5D.html#N10178, last visit: 2008/8/31.
    7. Federal Trade Commission, To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy, 2003, http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf, last visit 2008/11/1
    8. Gutierrez Carlos, Letter from United States Department of Commerce to the Congress, April 3, 2008, http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/letters/110/S1145Apr0308.pdf, last visit: 2008/11/11.
    9. House, House Report 110-314 - PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2007, September 4, 2007, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr314), last visit: 2008/11/11.
    10. House, HR 1908 PCS, September 11, 2007, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110rhNK3v::, last visit: 2008/11/11.
    11. Ladas & Parry LLP, A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States, http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html, last visit: 2008/11/11.
    12. Leahy Patrick and Hatch Orrin, Meaningful Patent Reform, The Washington Time, February 15, 2008, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/15/meaningful-patent-reform/, last visit: 2008/11/05
    13. Lemley Mark A. and Shapiro Carl, Patent Hold-Up and Royalty Stacking, Competition Policy Center., Paper CPC07-065, January 10, 2007, http://repositories.cdlib.org/iber/cpc/CPC07-065, last visit: 2009/06/30.
    14. Lichtman Doug (host), Patent Reform: Damages, audio program regarding testimony given before the Senate, from the Intellectual Property Colloquium, hosted by UCLA Law School’s Doug Lichtman, http://www.ipcolloquium.com/Programs/7.html, last visit: 2009/07/01.
    15. Merrill Stephen A., LevinRichard C., and Myers Mark B. (eds), A Patent System for the 21st Century, 2004, 9-10, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10976, last visit: 2008/11/11.
    16. Michel Paul, Letter from Chief Judge Michel to Sens. Leahy and Hatch, May 3, 2007, http://www.patentsmatter.com/issue/legislation.php, last visit 2009/02/12.
    17. PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007 Patent and Trademark Damages Study, 2007, http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/CB9DF7557A7E45088525729500564C55, last visit: 2009/01/08
    18. Rooklidge William C., Patent Reform Damages Provision Violates Seventh Amendment, Patently-O, March 15, 2009, http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/03/rooklidge-patent-reform-damages-provision-violates-seventh-amendment.html, last visit: .2009/06/30.
    19. Sandburg Brenda, You May Not Have Choice. Trolling for Dollars, The Recorder, 2001, available at Law.com; also available at http://www.phonetel.com/pdfs/LWTrolls.pdf; last visit 2009/02/08.
    20. Senate, S 1145 RS, January 24, 2008, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110o5gnpv::, last visit: 2008/11/11.
    21. Senate, Senate Report 110-259 - THE PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2007, January 24, 2008, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/2?cp110:./temp/~cp110mSUfk&sid=cp110mSUfk&item=2&sel=TOCLIST&hd_count=2&xform_type=3&r_n=sr259.110&dbname=cp110&&r_n=sr259&dbname=cp110&refer=&&, last visit: 2008/11/11.
    22. Senate, Senate Report 111-018 - THE PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2009, May 12, 2009, by Senator Leahy from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp111:FLD010:@1(sr018), last visit: 2009/06/01.
    23. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patents By Country, State, and Year - Utility Patents (December 2007), PTMT (Patent Technology Monitoring Team) patent statistics reports, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/reports.htm#by_type, last visit: 2008/09/11.
    24. Wienecke Nathaniel F., Letter from United States Department of Commerce to Senate, February 4, 2008, http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/letters/110/S1145020408.pdf, last visit: 2008/11/11.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律科際整合研究所
    95652012
    97
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095652012
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[法律與科技整合研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    201201.pdf118KbAdobe PDF936View/Open
    201202.pdf342KbAdobe PDF1235View/Open
    201203.pdf340KbAdobe PDF1468View/Open
    201204.pdf320KbAdobe PDF1091View/Open
    201205.pdf499KbAdobe PDF1465View/Open
    201206.pdf653KbAdobe PDF3284View/Open
    201207.pdf572KbAdobe PDF2213View/Open
    201208.pdf562KbAdobe PDF1623View/Open
    201209.pdf594KbAdobe PDF1695View/Open
    201210.pdf340KbAdobe PDF1656View/Open
    201211.pdf335KbAdobe PDF1453View/Open


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


    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 ©   - Feedback