非實施專利實體與專利訴訟－美國發明法實施前後之實證分析

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：15

、訪客IP：18.117.165.66

姓名

文芝穎(Zhi-Ying Wen) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

產業經濟研究所

論文名稱

非實施專利實體與專利訴訟－美國發明法實施前後之實證分析

相關論文

★ 期間利差與經濟衰退之預測模型-理性預期假設之驗證	★ 台灣、美國總經月數據與台股股價指數之關聯性
★ 台灣資訊電子產業異質性及利潤率之探討	★ 中小企業案件逾期放款之預測
★ 台灣半導體產業經營效率分析－三階段資料包絡分析法之應用	★ 台灣車輛產業經濟附加價值之研究－兼論影響信通交通器材公司經濟附加價值之因素
★ 外人直接投資與研發活動之關聯性-台灣電子相關產業之實證研究	★ 消費性信用貸款授信評量模式之研究
★ 二順位房貸產品風險預警分析	★ 新產品商業化流程之個案研究–以美商3M公司為例
★ 高淨值客戶風險屬性與共同基金投資報酬率之實證研究	★ 台灣加權指數與指數股票型基金風險值之歷史模擬法分析
★ 國際油價、匯率與利率之動態關聯—VECM與VECM-GARCH之應用	★ 主流記憶體之二十年價格模式研究與驗證
★ 以DEA模型分析桃園郵局之營運績效	★ 奢侈稅實施對都會地區房價之衝擊反應分析

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

2011年的美國發明法大幅修正專利制度，並提供許多法律機制回應非實施專利實體之商業模式。本文之研究目的在於研究非實施專利實體在專利訴訟中是如何運作，並探討其在訴訟活動中所出現之問題。為了更深入了解美國發明法對非實施專利實體之影響，本文將從非實施專利實體之興起及其商業模式分析起，再觀察其訴訟行為和相關爭議。
本文採用實證方法對非實施專利實體之專利訴訟進行分析，並從LexMachina蒐集專利訴訟案件之資料。根據本文實證分析，美國發明法強化了行政程序上之救濟措施，以解決專利有效性之問題，對於目前NPEs濫用專利訴訟之情況將會有所改善。此外，美國發明法提高併案審理門檻之成果，似無法顯著的抑制NPEs濫訴行為，反而會造成法院專利訴訟案件量上升，加重法院負擔。

摘要(英)

America Invents Act in 2011 makes a great amendment on the patent system and provides many legal provisions to target on NPEs. The major purpose of this study is to explore NPEs real operation in the patent litigations. In this paper, the issues that the NPEs′ litigation activities have shown will be thoroughly reviewed and discussed. To gain a better understanding of impacts on NPEs, this research will start with analyzing the rise of NPEs and their business models, observing their litigations behaviors and related disputes.
This study applies the empirical approach in analyzing NPEs’ patent litigation, and collects patent litigation cases from LexMachina. According to this paper′s empirical analysis, the America Invents Act strengthens the administrative remedy in order to resolve the problem of the patent validity that will improve the circumstance which NPEs abuse the patent litigation. Also, the America Invents Act enhance the limitation of joinder of parties. It seems not significantly affect NPE′s patent litigation activities, but result in raising the patent litigation, and increasing burden of the courts.

關鍵字(中)

★ 非實施專利體
★ 美國發明法
★ 專利訴訟
★ 實證分析

關鍵字(英)

★ Non-Practicing Entity
★ America Invents Act
★ Patent Litigation
★ Empirical Analysis

論文目次

目錄
摘要 I
Abstract II
目錄 III
圖目錄 V
表目錄 VI
1. 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機及目的 1
1.2 研究方法 3
1.3 研究架構 4
2. 研究背景 5
2.1 NPEs之興起 5
2.1.1 專利叢林現象 5
2.1.2 美國專利訴訟制度 6
2.1.3 美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院之成立 7
2.2 美國發明法概述 13
2.2.1 美國發明法立法背景 13
2.2.2 美國發明法可能影響NPEs之變革 14
2.3 綜合分析 17
3. 文獻回顧 19
3.1 NPEs類型 19
3.2 NPEs爭議 21
3.2.1 NPEs之反對論點 21
3.2.2 NPEs之贊成論點 23
3.3美國發明法施行前後之影響 24
4.實證分析 28
4.1 資料來源與樣本選擇 28
4.2 專利案件概覽 30
4.3 新設複審程序實證分析 31
4.3.1 單方、多方再審程序與新設複審程序之比較 31
4.3.2 NPEs及NPEs Targets涉新設複審程序案件分析 32
4.3.3 無效專利與可專利性標的之分析 35
4.4 併案審理制度實證分析 38
4.5 綜合分析 42
4.6小結 43
5. 結論與建議 45
5.1 結論 45
5.2 研究限制及未來方向 46
參考文獻 48
Appendixes 54

參考文獻

馮震宇，智慧財產權發展趨勢與重要問題研究，元照，2011年1月。
經濟部智慧財產局，美國專利訴訟教戰手冊進階版，2013年3月。
謝銘洋，智慧財產權法，第二版，元照出版有限公司，2011年9月。
熊誦梅，當公法遇上私法—臺灣智慧財產訴訟制度之今昔，元照出版有限公司，2011年5月。
向乾瑋，不實施專利實體在高科技專利市場中之角色與定位，科技法律透析，第25卷，第10期，2013年10月。
李治安，商業方法相關智慧財產權問題之研究，科技法律透析，第13卷，第12期，2001年12月。
楊仲榮，eBay 拍賣網專利糾紛案，智慧財產季刊第59期，2006年1月。
薛雅丰，非專利實施體的發展趨勢與近況，科技法律透析，第25卷，第1期，2013年1月。
Allison, John R., Mark A. Lemley & Joshua Walker (2009). “Extreme Value of Trolls on Top? The Characteristics of the Most-Litigated Patents”, 158 U. PA. L. REV., 1-37.
Bessen, James & Michael J. Meurer (2014). “The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes”, 99 Cornell L. Rev. 387, 1-35.
Bessen, James E., Michael J. Meurer & Jennifer Laurissa Ford (2011). “The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls”, Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 11-45, 26-35.
Chien, Colleen V. & Mark A. Lemley (2012). “Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest”, 98 CORNELL L. REV., 1-46.
Chien, Colleen V. (2010). “From Arms Race to Marketplace: The Complex Patent Ecosystem and Its Implications for the Patent System”, 62 HASTINGS L. J., 297-356.
Chuang, Ashley (2006). “Fixing The Failures of Software Patent Protection: Deterring Patent Trolling By Applying Industry-Specific Patentability Standards”, 16 S. CAL. INTERDIS. L. J., 215-251.
Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper (2008). “In Search of Institutional Identity: The Federal Circuit Comes of Age”, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J., 787-828
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (2011). “The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies With Competition”, 1-302.
Gregory, Jennifer Kahaulelio (2007). “The Troll Next Door”, 6 J.MARSHALL. REV. INTELL. PROP. L., 292-309.
Jeruss, Sara, Robin Feldman & Joshua Walker (2012). “The America Invents Act 500: Effects of Patent Monetization Entities on US Litigation”, 11 DUKE L. & TECH. REV., 357-389.
Kortum, Samuel & Josh Lerner (1999)., “What is behind the recent surge in patenting”, 28 Research Policy, 1-22.
Lanjouw, Jean O. & Mark Schankerman (2004). “Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?”, 47 J.L. & ECON. 45-74.
Magliocca, Gerard N. (2007). “Blackberries and Barnyards: Patent Trolls and the Perils of Innovation”, 82 NOTRE DAME L. REV., 1809-1838.
Matal, Joe (2012). “A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act: Part II of II”, 21 FED. CIR. B.J., 435-513.
McCurdy, Daniel P (2009). “Patent Trolls Erode the Foundation of the U.S. Patent System”, Sci. Progress, 78-86.
McDonough III, James F. (2006). “The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy”, 56 EMORY L. J., 189-228.
Papst, Daniel (2013). “NPEs and Patent Aggregators-New, Complementary Business Models for Modern IP Markets”, LES NOUVELLES, 94-98.
Risch, Michael (2012). “Patent Troll Myths”, 42 SETON HALL L. REV., 457-499.
Schwartz, David L. & Jay P. Kesan (2014). “Analyzing the Role of Non-Practicing Entities in the Patent System”, 99 Cornell L. Rev., 425-456.
Shang, Roger (2009). “Inter Partes Reexamination and improving patent quality”, 7 NW. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP., 185-203.
Shapiro, Carl (2001). “Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting”, INNOVATION POLICY AND THE ECONOMY, 119-150.
Shapiro, Carl (2010). “Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties”, American Law and Economics Review Advance Access, 280-318.
Shrestha, Sannu K. (2010). “Trolls or Market-Makers? An Empirical Analysis of Nonpracticing Entities”, 110 CoL. L. REV, 114-160.
Stern, Peter J. & Timothy G. Doyle (2011). “Trend and Developments Regarding Nonpracticing Entities in the U.S”, Chizai Kanri, Vol. 61, No.4, 1-16.
Zubler, Todd (2009). “2008 Patent Law Decisions of The Federal Circuit”, 58 Am. U. L. Rev., 747-945.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2013 PATENT LITIGATION STUDY (2013)
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2014 PATENT LITIGATION STUDY (2014)
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2015 PATENT LITIGATION STUDY (2015).
RPX CORPORATION, 2012 NPE Activity Report (2012)
RPX CORPORATION, 2013 NPE LITIGATION REPORT (2013)
RPX CORPORATION, 2014 NPE LITIGATION REPORT (2014)
RPX CORPORATION, 2015 NPE Activity Highlights (2015)
Executive Office of the President, Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation (June, 2013), http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/patent_report.pdf (last visited May 14, 2016).
End Anonymous Patents Act, H.R. 2024, 113th Cong. (2013), https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2024 (last visited May 14, 2016).
Patent Abuse Reduction Act, S. 866, 113th Cong. (2013), https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1013 (last visited May 14, 2016).
Patent Quality Improvement Act, S. 866, 113th Cong. (2013), https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/866 (last visited May 14, 2016).
UnifiedPatents, 2015 Patent Dispute Report , January 4, 2016, http://unifiedpatents.com/2015-year-end-report/ (last visited March 12, 2016).
Michelle Carniaux and Julia Tanase, Statistics for Stays In View of IPR and CBM Proceedings, April 15, 2014, http://interpartesreviewblog.com/statistics-stays-view-ipr-cbm-proceedings/ (last visited March 12, 2016).
Michael Gulliford, If Patent Reform Is Meant to Starve Patent Trolls, Why Is It Feeding Them Instead?, September 8, 2014, http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/09/08/if-patent-reform-is-meant-to-starve-patent-trolls-why-is-it-feeding-them-instead/id=51067/ (last visited April 9, 2016).
Largest Patent Holdings, https://www.patentfreedom.com/about-npes/holdings/ (last visited September 10, 2014).
Reexamination Information, http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/statistics/reexamination-information (last visited May 10, 2016).
Roger Shang, Inter Partes Reexamination and improving patent quality, 7 NW. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP. 185, 192-193 (2009).
USPTO, Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., June 25, 2014, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf (last visited May 10, 2016).
Joe Mullin, Patenting everyday life: “Business method” lawsuits are growing fast, Sep 5, 2013, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/patenting-everyday-life-business-method-lawsuits-are-growing-fast/ (last visited May 10, 2016).
USPTO, COMMENTS OF GOOGLE INC., April 25, 2014 http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/comments/cr_e_google_20140428.pdf (last visited May 10, 2016).
Tony Dutra, Rader Regrets CLS Bank Impasse, Comments on Latest Patent Reform Bill, October 29, 2013, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/patent_report.pdf (last visited May 10, 2016).
O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1853).
Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 1948).
Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. 498 (1874).
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
State Street Bank & Trust Co v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d (Fed.Cir.1998).
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).
Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. (2012)
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. (2013).
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International et al, 573 U.S. (2014).

指導教授

陳忠榮、王明禮(Jong-Rong Chen Ming-Li Wang)

審核日期

2016-6-28

推文