English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 109950/140901 (78%)
Visitors : 46004483      Online Users : 824
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: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/132670

    Title: 專利物與著作重製物之首次銷售原則的適用區域
    Authors: 鄭莞鈴
    Cheng, Wan-Ling
    Contributors: 智慧財產評論
    Keywords: 首次銷售原則 ; 國際耗盡 ; 國內耗盡 ; 著作權 ; 專利權 
    First-Sale Doctrine ; International Exhaustion ; Domestic Exhaustion ; Copyright ; Patent
    Date: 2019-05
    Issue Date: 2020-11-17 16:45:23 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 美國聯邦最高法院在2013年3月,在Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley案就著作權首次銷售原則的地域適用範圍做出判決,卻於同月駁回Ninestar Technology Co. v. International Trade Commission案就專利權首次銷售原則的地域適用範圍的上訴請求。然而,專利權首次銷售原則是否受限於美國境內適用之爭議,再次見於Lexmark Int`l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc.案,美國聯邦最高法院嗣於2017年5月做出終審判決,首揭美國專利物之販售地即使為美國境外,仍適用首次銷售原則,專利權人就該專利物所享有之專利權自得耗盡。是以,本文旨欲探討相隔四年,美國聯邦最高法院就首次銷售原則之適用地域範圍,於著作權與專利權兩法領域終於做出幾乎一致判決之影響,除了一明過去美國司法實務上就此問題之爭議,並透過美國司法實務遽然轉變之觀察,再重新檢視我國專利與著作權之相關現行法制,希冀未來若於專利權與著作權首次銷售原則之修法,能有所啟發。
    In March 2013, the Supreme Court decided the territorial limits of the "first-sale doctrine" in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley, but denied Ninestar`s petition for writ of certiorari of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Ninestar Tech. Co. v. Int`l Trade Comm`n. Later, the same question about territory of patent exhaustion has arisen soon in Lexmark Int`l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc., and expectedly the Supreme Court first ruled that an authorized sale outside the United States exhausted all rights under the Patent Act. Here, the Article aims to analyze how the effects might be after the Supreme Court made no geographical distinctions of the "first-sale doctrine" in both the Copyright Act and Patent Act, in four years after the ruling of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley. By studying the U.S. statutes and the U.S. judicial exhaustion cases, this Article ends by suggesting some changes made to the current text of the exhaustion laws, respectively in Patent Act and Copyright Act in Taiwan.
    Relation: 智慧財產評論, 15(2), 137-170
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: https://doi.org/10.30387/NCCUIPR.201905_15(2).0004
    DOI: 10.30387/NCCUIPR.201905_15(2).0004
    Appears in Collections:[智慧財產評論] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    4.pdf10228KbAdobe PDF2170View/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 Copyright Announcement
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback