Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/58855
|
| Title: | 美國專利法制下之特殊侵權態樣 ̶ 以§271(f)及台灣代工產業之因應策略為例
The Unique Infringement Type under American Patent Law: Focusing on §271(f) and Coping Strategy of Taiwanese OEM/ODM |
| Authors: | 彭譽之 |
| Contributors: | 李治安
彭譽之 |
| Keywords: | 美國專利法
35U.S.C. §271(f)
代工
專利耗盡
默示授權
專利請求項
US Patent Act
35U.S.C. §271(f
OEM/ODM
Patent exhausition
Implied license
claim |
| Date: | 2012 |
| Issue Date: | 2013-07-11 17:56:11 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 美國專利相關法制中，存在若干舉世獨特而保護色彩強烈之規範，例如基於長臂法案（Long Arm Statute），即使被告實體上或法律上未出現於美國法院轄區範圍，法院亦得行使其管轄權；又例如遲至2011年始修法廢止之先發明主義（first-to-invent），以及本文之主題美國專利法35U.S.C. §271(f)。
§271(f)係為填補早期專利法漏洞而設計，使自美國供應全部或主要構件或專用構件至境外組裝為美國專利發明成品之行為，同樣以直接侵權論之，而不論同一發明於組裝地是否亦受專利保護。無論該條款於國際智慧財產權法理或個案運作上是否失當難行，台灣一方面身為美國諸多品牌大廠之主要代工夥伴，一方面亦積極於美布局專利武器，自然亦受該條款直接或間接影響牽制。
經本文討論，其中§271(f)(2)款應較符合現代國際產業分工實務，以台灣擅長之代工角色而言，可在上游端就關鍵零件取得專利授權後，援引權利耗盡或默示授權作為侵權抗辯，惟須確認上游端授權條款是否附隨不利限制。最末，專利布局策略上，本文提議以整體組合中具有可專利特徵之最小單元為請求標的，足以兼顧權利之有效行使及可專利性。
There are some unique law and regulation with strong domestic protectionism under US patent system. For example, the Long Arm Statute may extend a state’s jurisdiction to reach a defendant that lacks both physical and personal presence in the state, and this research’s focus 35U.S.C. §271(f).
35 U.S.C. §271(f) was enacted in 1984 to close a loophole in US patent system, which forbids supplying all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention so as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States, besides, supplying a non-staple component especially made for use in the patented invention also constitutes an act of infringement. No matter if there is any obstacle in implement of the Act, since Taiwan, as a main OEM/ODM partner of many US tier-one brand owners, is always aggressive to establish patent portfolio in the States, will be impacted by this law as well, directly or indirectly.
According to this research, §271(f)(2) will be more feasible for today’s global collaboration practice. For Taiwanese OEM/ODM, after a patent license for a key component is conducted by an upstream partner, patent exhaustion doctrine or implied license doctrine can be adopted as a non-infringement argument, if there is no unfavorable condition tied with mentioned license agreement. From the aspect of patent prosecution, the minimum unit with the patented feature is suggested to be the claimed subject matter, to give consideration to both enforceability and patentability. |
| Reference: | 一、中文資料(按作者姓氏筆劃排序)
(一)專書
謝銘洋，專利進口權與平行輸入，智慧財產權基本問題研究，自版，1999年。
(二)期刊
李儀，專利大戰迷思 專利銀行與智財基金：團結抗敵還是結黨獨占？（下）學理篇，北美智權報第五十期，2011年09月29日。
沈宗倫，由對價平衡觀點論智慧財產權耗盡原則之適用─以平行輸入為中心，國立中正大學法學集刊， 2007年11月5日。
沈宗倫，由權利耗盡原則論合法專利物之使用界限：以專利物組裝與修復為中心，臺大法學論叢第39卷第1期，2010年3月。
財政部，102年5月海關進出口貿易統計快報，發布日期：102年6月7日。
徐宏昇，專利物品可否平行輸入，資訊傳真週刊，1997年12月15日。
黃詩芳，由Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.案論美國專利法第271(f)條之適用，聖島國際智財權實務報導，第9卷9期，2007年9月。
陳美菊、李淑麗，全球經濟危機對台灣貿易之影響及對策，經濟研究，第9期，2009年12月31日。
葉雲卿，由方法專利看專利直接侵權構成要件－以數個侵權人聯合實施某被控專利請求項為討論中心，北美智權報，第66期，2012年8月1日。
楊益昇，美國專利權境外效力限制之另一章：美國專利法第271條(f)不適用於方法專利，科技法律透析， 2010年1月。
經濟部國際貿易局，2012年中華民國對外貿易發展概況，公佈日期：2013年6月11日。
蔡明誠，論智慧財產權之用盡原則－試從德國法觀察、兼論歐洲法之相關規範，政大法學評論41期， 1980年6月。
(三)學位論文
鄭緯綸，資訊產業市場力量之管制 - 以微軟案為主軸，國立清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2008年7月。
(四)網路資料
美國專利訴訟案件統計(含美國國際貿易委員會ITC337調查及美國聯邦地方法院)，科技政策研究與資訊中心—科技產業資訊室整理，2012年6月，http://cdnet.stpi.narl.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2012/pclass_12_A146.htm，最後上網日期：2012年9月30日。
TRIPS - 與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定，工業總會貿易發展組國際經貿服務網，http://www.cnfi.org.tw/wto/all-module24.php?id=40&module_class=4&&t_type=o，最後上網日期：2012年9月30日。
二、外文資料
I. Books
Alan L Durham, Patent Law Essentials: A Concise Guide, Baker & Taylor Books, Third Edition (2009)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 303, 9th ed. (2009)
Gary Ritchey, The Federal Circuit Revitalizes Contributory Infringement, Lexology, Globe Business Publishing Ltd. (2009)
Hobday, M., Innovation in East Asia: The Challenge to Japan, Edward Elgar (1995)
Lionel Bently & Brad Sherman, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 5, Oxford Univ. Press, USA (2004)
ROBERT C. FABER, Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting, Release No.5, Practising Law Institute (2005)
II. Periodicals
Chris Barry et al., 2012 Patent Litigation Study, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 20 (2012)
Federal Circuit Changes the Standard for Induced Infringement of Method Patents, Intellectual Property ADVISORY, Alston & Bird LLP, 6, September 6, (2012)
Homer Yang-hsien Hsu, Exportabolity’s Effect on Process Patent Enforcement: Why § 271(F) Export Restrictions Do Not Aaaply to Intangible Process Claims, WASHINGTON JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & ARTS VOLUME 6 (2011)
Kia L. Freeman et al., The U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Patent Exhaustion, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, September 1, (2008)
James R. Farrand, Territoriality and Incentives under the Patent Laws: Overreaching Harms U.S. Economic and Technological Interests, BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL Vol. 21:4 (2006)
James G. Gatto et al., Extraterritorial Effects of U.S. Patents, IP LAW360 (2006)
Jefferson Perkins, “System” Travels Abroad, “Method” Gets Grounded: Transnational Reach and Acts of Infringement of Different U.S. Patent Claim Types After Ntp V. Rim (Fed. Cir.), The Journal of the DuPage County Bar Association, Vol. 18 (2005-06)
Mark A. Lemley, Point of Novelty, Law Review Article, Northwestern University School of Law, Vol. 105, No. 3 (2011)
Mark A Lemley ET AL., Divided Infringement Claims, AIPLA QUARTERLY JOURNAL, VOLUME 33 NUMBER 3 (2005)
Melissa Feeney Wasserman, Divided Infringement: Expanding The Extraterritorial Scope of Patent Law, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW Vol. 82 (2007)
Nari Lee, Fragmented Infringement of Computer Program Patents in the Global Economy, 48 IDEA 345 (2008)
Peter J. Kinsella, Hidden Risks of Patent License Agreements: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You, PLI: 3rd Annual Patent Law Institute (2009)
W. Keith Robinson, No “Direction” Home: An Alternative Approach to Joint Infringement, American University Law Review, Vol. 62 (2012)
III. Cases
Adams v. Burke, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 453 (1873)
AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (1999)
AT&T corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 414 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Ariz. Cartridge Remfrs. Ass’n v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (N.D. Cal. 2003)
Ariz. Cartridge Remfrs. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l Inc., (9th Cir. 2005)
Bauer & Cie v. O’Donnell 229 U.S. 1 (1913)
Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A., 353 U.S. 138 (1957)
Bloomer v. McQuewan, 55 U.S. 14 How. 539 (1852)
Bloomer v. Millinger, 68 U.S. 340 (1863)
Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories 124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 16895 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc. (Cardiac Paces. Panel), 303 F. App’x 884 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Omega S.A
Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972)
Deutsche Grammophon, GmbH v Metro-SB-Grossmarket, GmbH & Co., Case 78/70, (1971)
E.g., Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 302 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
Enpat, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 6 F. Supp. 2d 537 (E.D. Va. 1998)
Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436 (1940)
Foley Bros., Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)
Fujifilm Corp. v. Benun et al., No. 2009-1487, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10827 (Fed. Cir. May 27, 2010)
Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. Jazz Photo Corp., 394 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co. 304 U.S. 175 (1938)
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., 563 U.S. (2011)
Honeywell, Inc. v. Metz Apparatewerke, 184 USPQ 387 (7th Cir. 1975)
In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Keeler v. Standard Folding-Bed, 157 U.S. 659 (1895)
LG Electronics, Inc. v. Asustek Computer, Inc., 65 USPQ 2d 1589 (ND Cal. 2002)
LG Electronics, Inc. v. Asustek Computer, Inc., 248 F.Supp. 2d 912 (ND Cal. 2003)
LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc., 453 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
Mallinckrodt v. Medipart 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007)
Mitchell v. Hawley, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 544 (1873)
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917)
NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008)
Rotec Industries, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
TransCore LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp., (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Union Carbide Chems. & Plastics Tech. Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 425 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
United States v. Univis Lens Co., Inc. 316 U.S. 241 (1942)
Waymark Corp. v. Porta Systems Corp, 58 USPQ2d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. Intercat, Inc., 60 F.Supp. 2d 316 (D.Del. 1999)
Standard Havens Products Inc. v. Gencor Industries, Inc., 953 F.2d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
Synaptic Pharmaceutical Corp. v. MDS Panlabs, Inc., 265 F. Supp. 2d 452 (D.N.J. 2002)
IV. Internet Sources
Andrew J. Sherman, International Protection of Brands and Patents, KAUFFMAN EVENTURING (2006) http://www.buildastrongeramerica.com/en/resource-center/international-protection-of-brands-and-patents.aspx, 最後上網日期：2012年12月 12日。
Michael Schuette, DDR2 - An Overview, LOSTCIRCUITS, 2002, http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=60&limit=1&limitstart=3, 最後上網日期：2012年12月 12日。
Patents and Other Legal Protection, TECHtransfer, University of Michigan, http://www.techtransfer.umich.edu/resources/inventors/patents.php, 最後上網日期：2012年12月 12日。
Rajiv Sarathy, Inoculating Against Patent Value Depreciation, PATENT LAW INSIGHTS, Perkins Coie’s Intellectual Property Group (2009) http://www.patentlawinsights.com/2009/08/articles/patent-valuation/inoculating-against-patent-value-depreciation/，最後上網日期：2012年9月30日。
Top 10 EMS providers / ODM rankings, ratings, reviews, TechXchange Community Partner, http://www.ventureoutsource.com/contract-manufacturing/top-10-ems-odm-reviews-and-ratings/，最後上網日期：2012年11月20日。
U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Patent Technology Monitoring Team (PTMT), Electrical Classes (2011) http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/stelec.htm，最後上網日期：2012年9月30日。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
法學院碩士在職專班
98961230
101 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098961230 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [法學院碩士在職專班] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 123001.pdf | 7331Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 348 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
