English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 92429/122733 (75%)
Visitors : 26459785      Online Users : 71
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/140.119/51553


    Title: 專利侵權懲罰性賠償金立法政策之分析—以臺灣法與美國法為中心
    the analysis on legislative policy of punitive damages in patent infringement: focusing on the Taiwanese and American patent laws
    Authors: 譚百年
    Tang, Pei Nien
    Contributors: 宿文堂
    李治安

    譚百年
    Tang, Pei Nien
    Keywords: 專利
    懲罰性賠償
    故意侵權
    專利侵權
    專利侵權損害賠償
    專利法修正
    專利法修法
    嚇阻理論
    patent infringement
    punitive damages
    enhanced damages
    willful infringement
    patent law
    patent reform act
    In re Seagate
    deterrence theory
    Date: 2009
    Issue Date: 2011-10-11 16:49:21 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 懲罰性賠償金為英美法傳統下之制度,其目的在於以超越實際損害數額之賠償金,制裁主觀惡性程度特別重大之侵權人,與一般用以填補損害之補償性賠償金有本質上之差異。昔日多適用於被害人尊嚴遭嚴重侵犯之案件,然隨現代經濟社會之發展,亦漸用於處罰公司法人、制裁經濟犯罪。
    我國侵權行為法主要繼受德國之體系,以損害填補為原則,故僅於特定領域之立法中承認懲罰性賠償金制度。現行專利法採取懲罰性賠償金之立法例,而目前經濟部之修法草案則擬廢除。
    本研究首先介紹美國法發展趨勢、實務重要案例與晚近之專利改革法案,歸納其趨勢為「嚴格限制故意侵權之構成、提高專利權人舉證責任、限縮懲罰性賠償金之適用範圍」;其次,以實證方式分析台灣智慧財產法院歷年相關之判決結果,認為實務運作有「大多數請求懲罰性賠償金之案例,連侵權責任都尚未構成,有請求浮濫、逼迫被告和解之嫌」、「法院認定侵權人故意,實質上往往僅論及侵權人『知悉系爭專利存在』即可,相較於現行法標準實過於寬鬆」;最後,綜合美國法發展趨勢、我國實務情形、懲罰性賠償金功能論與法律經濟分析觀點,認為我國尚不宜廢除專利侵權懲罰性賠償金制度,惟應將其限縮適用於「搭便車」與「專利有效性毋需再確認」之故意侵權情形,以降低社會研發成本、賦與從事研發者挑戰垃圾專利之機會,方切合專利法促進研發之本旨。
    Punitive damages, a traditional system under the common law, aims to sanction those infringers having substantially subjective malice by awarding enhanced damages beyond the actual damages. It is naturally different from compensatory damages. Punitive damages were originally used to dealing with serious violations of the victims’ dignity of the cases. With the development of economic society, this system was gradually used to punishing corporations and sanctioning economic crimes.
    Since Taiwanese tort laws are mainly inherited from German laws, which only permit plaintiffs claiming for compensatory damages. Punitive damages were only adopted in several specific kinds of tort laws, as in the patent law. However, the provision of punitive damages was revoked in the current patent reform act drafted by Ministry of Economic Affairs.
    This study starts out by introducing the trend of American law, the essential practical cases, and the recent patent reform acts. It concludes the trend to have the following three characteristics:
    1. Strictly limit the constitution of willful infringement;
    2. Increase patentee’s burden of proof; and
    3. Restrict the scope of awarding punitive damages.
    The study then empirically analyzes the related judgments of Taiwan Intellectual Property Count over the years. It finds that in majority of the cases claiming punitive damages, most plaintiffs can even not to prove that defendants have infringed their patents, yet force defendants to settle. Also, the court in Taiwan usually award patentees punitive damages loosely only if they can prove that infringers had known the existence of the patent . This phenomenon makes the standard in practice not strict as the standard in law.
    Lastly, this study sums up the aspects from the development trend of American patent law, current practice in Taiwan, the theory of punitive damages function, and economic analysis of law, and finds that it would be inappropriate to revoke the provision of punitive damages in patent infringement cases. This study suggests that punitive damages should be awarded only in two types of willful infringement: 1. when the defendant is a “free rider, or 2. when the validity of the patent need not be challenged anymore. This way, it may lower the cost of research and development, give developers more chance to challenge junk patents, and finally reach the purpose of patent law – encourage innovation.
    Reference: 壹、中文文獻
    一、書籍
    毛慶生,朱敬一,林全等,經濟學,臺北市:華泰文化。
    林山田,刑法通論,臺北市:自版。
    周延鵬(2010),智慧財產行銷獲利聖經,臺北市:天下雜誌股份有限公司。
    周延鵬(2006),一堂課價值兩千億-智慧財產的戰略與戰術,臺北市:商訊文化。
    周延鵬(2006),虎與狐的智慧力-智慧資源規劃9把金鑰,臺北市:天下雜誌股份有限公司。
    陳郁婷、周延鵬、王承守、鄧穎懋(2007),跨國專利侵權訴訟之管理,臺北市:元照出版有限公司。
    陳聰富、陳忠五、沈冠伶、許士宦(2004)美國懲罰性賠償金判決之承認與執行,臺北市:新學林圖書出版公司。
    陳聰富(2008),侵權歸責原則與損害賠償,臺北市:元照出版有限公司。
    黃銘傑(2006),競爭法與智慧財產法之交會─相生與相剋之間,臺北市:元照出版有限公司。
    曾陳明汝著、蔡明誠續著(2009),兩岸暨歐美專利法,臺北市:學林文化總經銷。
    馮震宇、詹森林、林明珠合著(1995),消費者保護法問答資料,臺北市:行政院消費者保護委員會。
    劉江彬、黃俊英合著(2004),智慧財產管理總論,臺北市:華泰文化。
    劉江彬編(2008),智慧財產法律與管理─案例評析(六),臺北市:華泰文化。
    蔡明誠(2008),專利侵權要件及損害賠償計算,臺北市:經濟部智慧財產局。
    二、期刊論文
    王兆鵬(2006),貫徹平等與實質之辯護制度,月旦法學雜誌,第137期。
    王兆鵬(2006),律師與當事人之秘匿特權,刑事法雜誌,第50卷第6期。
    林恆毅(2004),專利侵權責任保險,科技法律透析,第16卷第6期。
    李柏靜(2009),中國大陸專利法制之損害賠償規範與計算方法─從第三次專利法修正談起,政大智慧財產評論,第7卷第2期。
    李柏靜(2009),專利法修正草案對損害賠償計算修訂之思考與評析,法令月刊,第60卷11期。
    汪偉柏、林承永、劉育彬、傅冬卿(2009),專利故意侵權實證研究:以美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院In Re Seagate 案為中心,第四屆全國實證法學研究研討會論文集。
    洪志勳(2007),美國專利法修法趨勢及現況,科技法律透析,2007年4月。
    祝建輝、繆小明(2006),專利侵權適用懲罰性賠償制度的經濟分析,情報雜誌, 2006年第11期。
    馮震宇(1996),論侵害專利權之民事責任與民事救濟,法學叢刊第161期。
    楊宏暉(2008),公平交易季刊,第16卷第1期。
    熊誦梅(2006),從最高法院判決談專利侵權之主觀要件,全國律師第10卷第12期。
    蔡明誠(2006),專利侵權之過失要件與違反保護他人法律問題,全國律師第10卷第12期。
    三、學位論文
    吳雅貞(2008),專利授權之侵權風險管控研究—從侵權責任契約設計觀點,政治大學智慧財產研究所碩士論文。
    施志遠(2009),自美國專利改革趨勢論我國專利侵權損害賠償之認定,清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
    陳昱奉(2005),專利侵權訴訟機制之再建構—審前程序的檢討與改革,政治大學智慧財產研究所碩士論文。
    陳春玲(2003),論懲罰性賠償金之法律爭議與風險管理,政治大學風險管理與保險學系碩士論文。
    楊晉佳(2009),專利侵權損害賠償額之研究,政治大學智慧財產研究所碩士論文。
    趙彌嘉(2009),專利侵害懲罰性賠償之主觀要件—中美比較研究,世新大學法學院碩士論文
    鄭巧筠(2009),論侵害專利權之懲罰性賠償,臺灣大學法律研究所碩士論文。
    四、司法判解
    司法院66年6月1日(66)院臺參字第0578號令例變字第1號。
    司法院大法官解釋釋字第656號解釋李震山大法官協同意見書。
    司法院大法官解釋釋字第653號葉百修大法官協同意見書
    最高法院95年台上字第1177號民事判決。
    最高法院94年台上字第1340號民事判決。
    最高法院93年台上字第2292號民事判決。
    智慧財產法院98民專上易字第18號民事判決。
    智慧財產法院98民專訴字第21號民事判決
    智慧財產法院98民專訴字第77號民事判決
    智慧財產法院98民專上字第3號民事判決
    智慧財產法院98民專訴字第1號民事判決
    智慧財產法院98民專上字第5號民事判決
    智慧財產法院97民專訴字第2號民事判決
    智慧財產法院97民專訴字第66號民事判決
    智慧財產法院97民專訴字第47號民事判決
    智慧財產法院97民專訴字第22號民事判決
    智慧財產法院97民專上字第7號民事判決
    智慧財產法院97民專訴字第3號民事判決
    智慧財產法院97民專上易字第4號民事判決
    高等法院93年度上易字第8號民事判決。
    臺北地方法院91年訴字第6587號民事判決。
    五、立法院公報
    立法院公報,第82卷,第32期。
    貳、外文文獻
    一、 Books
    American Intellectual Property Law Association, Report of the Economic Survey, 2007
    Robert Cooter& Thomas Ulen, Law and economics, 1988
    二、 Articles
    John R. Alison, The Art of Patent Notice: Best Practices for Giving and Responding to Notification of U.S. Patent Rights, from materials of the course” Strategic Management of United States Patent Litigation: Trial Practice, Risk Management, Patent Valuation”, 2009 Spring in National Chengchi University.
    Gary S. Becker, Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, The Journal of Political Economy, 76, 1968
    Kenneth W. Brothers and Michael A. Weinstein, Analyzing Allegations of Willful Patent Infringement Claims After Seagate, Intellectual Property Owners Assocation
    Christopher A. Cotropia & Mark A. Lemley, Copying in Patent Law , North Carolina Law Review, 87, 2009
    Ryan Crockett, Balancing Burdens for Accused Infringers; How In Re Seagate Got It Right, DePaul Law Review, Summer 2009
    Justin P. Huddleson, Objectively reckless: a semi-empirical evaluation of In re Seagate, Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, 15, 2009
    William L. LaFuze& Matthew R. Rodgers& Michael A. Valek, Exculpatory Patent Opinions and Special Problems Regardings Wavier of Privilege, John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, Spring, 2007
    Christopher Ryan Lanks, In Re Seagate: Effects and Development of Willful Patent Infringement, West Virginia Law Review, Winter, 2009
    Timothy J. Malloy& Merle S. Elliott, Solving Hobson's Choice: Suggested Changes to Willfulness Law in the Wake of Knorr-Bremse and Echostar, Sedona Conference Journal, Fall, 2007
    Bruce J. Mckee, The Implications of BMW V. Core for Future Punitive Damages Litigation: Observation From A Participant, 48 Ala. L. Rev. 175(1996)
    Kimberly A. Moore, Empirical Statistics on Willful Patent Infringement, The Federal Circuit Bar Journal Vol. 14, No. 2, 2004
    Stephanie Pall, Willful Patent Infringement: Theoretically Sound? A Proposal to Restore Willful Infringement to Its Proper Place Within Patent Law, University of Illinois Law Review, 2009
    Danny Prati, In Re Seagate Technology LLC: A Clean Slate for Willfulness, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2008
    Elena Torgan, Willful Infringement and Counsel’s Opinion, West Virginia Law Review, 2009
    Jon E. Wright, Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages—Evolution and Analysis, George Mason Law Review, 10, 2001
    Eric C. Wrzesinski, Breaking the law to break into the black: patent infringement as a business strategy, Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, Winter 2007
    三、Cases
    Am. Safety Table Co. v. Schreiber, 415 F.2d 373 (2d Cir. 1969).
    Am. Standard, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 828 F.2d 734 (Fed.Cir.1987)
    Beatrice Foods, 923 F.2d at 1579
    Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U.S. 64 (1876).
    Clark v. Wooster, 119 U.S. 322 (1886)
    Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics International, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir.2001)
    Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, 397 F. Supp. 1146, 184 USPQ 775(D.S.C. 1974)
    Fort James Corp. v. Solo Cup Co., 412 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir.2005)
    Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. v. The Linder Air Products Company, 85 U.S.P.Q. 328, 1950.
    Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 653 (1983)
    Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)
    In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360(Fed. Cir. 2007)
    Leeds & Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company, 213 U.S. 325 (1909)
    Leesona Corp. v. United States, 599 F.2d 958, 969 (Ct. Cl. 1979)
    Wallace v. Holmes, 29 F.Cas 74 (C.C.D Conn. 1871)
    Panduit Crop. V. Stahlin, 575 F.2d 1152;1978 U.S. App. 197 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 726
    Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F.Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y.1970)
    Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge Gmbh v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337(Fed. Cir. 2004)
    SRI International, Inc. v. Advanced Technology Laboratories, Inc., 127 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
    State Industries, Inc. v. Mor-Flo Industries, Inc., 948 F.2d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Stickle v. Heublein, Inc., 716 F.2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
    參、網路資源
    Law.Com Dictionary:http://dictionary.law.com/
    LexisNexis資料庫:http://www.lexis.com/tw
    Westlaw資料庫:http://www.westlaw.com/
    司法院法學資料檢索系統:http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/Index.htm
    政府公報資訊網:http://gaz.ncl.edu.tw/
    方昊、張馨云,美國司法體系與民事訴訟程式簡介,www.atlf.com.tw/PDF/T/USLS(BF%20&RC).pdf,檢索日期:2010年2月21日
    余惠如,美國故意侵害專利認定暨律師與當事人間通訊及訴訟工作內容免揭露之最新發展—In re Seagate Technology, LLC 案介紹及評析,http://www.saint-island.com.tw/news/shownewsb.asp?seq=290&stat=y,檢索日期:2010年2月21日
    呂克行,探討美國專利惡意侵權的要素及應對方針,北美智權報,第27期,http://naipo97.pixnet.net/blog/post/24243902,檢索日期:2010年2月21日
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    智慧財產研究所
    96361012
    98
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0963610122
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[智慧財產研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    012201.pdf1891KbAdobe PDF2208View/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