台灣在經濟起飛的六○、七○年代靠著傳統產業賺進大量的外匯，也奠定了如今繁榮的基礎，但曾幾何時，以往帶領台灣走向繁榮進步的企業卻變成了人們口中夕陽末路的「傳統產業」，當然，現今我們口中所謂的傳統產業，不是從開始就如此傳統的，任何新的產品都是隨著時間的流逝、科技的進步、組織的老化、客戶的轉型等變化，從剛開始成立的新興產業，逐漸成長、成熟，慢慢變成現今的傳統產業，然而傳統產業並不一定代表獲利能力低落或是前途黯淡，台灣的經營之神王永慶曾說：「台灣沒有夕陽產業，只有夕陽公司」。傳統產業透過以往經驗、知識和資源的累積，透過轉型或新經營範圍、新產品的開發等方式，也可以找到新的起點，甚至是開創新的高峰。 本研究以中國砂輪為例，希望透過一個成功轉型的個案，去了解一個處於傳統產業的廠商，在進入新的經營範圍或開發新產品時，是如何因應不同產品生命週期，去改變其組織結構以配合其營運的需要。透過這個研究，希望能將理論與實務做結合，提供有心進入新市場的台灣傳統產業，在如何配合產品生命週期進行組織調整的議題上做為參考的依據。

一直以來，台灣企業在智慧財產的保護方面，與外國企業相比相對處於劣勢，財經報導方面只會看到台灣企業被外國企業控告的新聞，而且絕大部分最後的結果都是台灣企業支付大筆的權利金之後和解；而專利更是屬於高科技產業的問題，跟一般認為的傳統產業一點關係都沒有，但是竟然有一間被大眾認為傳統產業企業（中國砂輪公司），卻成功有效的逼退外國知名企業（3M）的專利訴訟，使外國企業支付和解金之後，還獲得其商業上的目的，成為這領域中與外國企業能相提並論的大型企業。 本研究以自身企業擁有的專利品質與所處於的產業價值鏈角度切入，參照國內外相關理論，並藉由次級資料、文獻探討與個案訪談的方式，分析中國砂輪公司面對跨國大型企業3M的專利訴訟中的因應，進而給面臨相同壓力的企業，一個可供參考的重要依據。 本研究主要發現如下： 1. 企業所擁有的專利品質越強，在專利訴訟的較容易佔有優勢地位。不過成功的專利範圍詮釋(Claim Interpretation)，可以補足專利品質上的不足，使得專利訴訟地位提昇，獲得較為有利的判決。 2. 企業所在的價值鏈地位，與是否願意進行專利訴訟相關，當所在的產業價值鏈地位越高，下游企業依賴性越高，更容易獲得資源進行專利訴訟。 3. 企業的目的在於獲取利潤，因此企業多以商業考量，來替代公平正義的法律考量。當訴訟成本小於訴訟預期收益時，企業會繼續進行訴訟，但當訴訟成本大於預期收益時，企業會選擇不再繼續訴訟。 4. 由於專利訴訟的最終目的在於增加商業談判籌碼，因此當被控告專利侵權時，就算經過檢視專利認為自身沒有侵權，仍應立即予以回應(提出反訴、進行商業結盟、立即變更製程、舉發對方專利無效等)，並非等待專利訴訟結果後才有所反應。 5. 在進行專利訴訟時，選擇有利的訴訟地點或方式，將會增加訴訟獲勝的機會，以及增加商業上的籌碼。 6. 當專利訴訟結果對於企業有利時，對於產品市佔率、股價等財務指標有所助益，尤其是對於小型的企業，其表現會更加亮眼。 同時本研究也提出以下建議，供產業界參考： 1. 中小企業面對跨國大企業的專利訴訟，應先檢視自身是否有侵權，以及是否有能夠提出反訴的專利。 2. 當面對專利訴訟時，應選擇專業與經驗兼具備的律師與專家證人，不要為了節省成本，因而因小失大。 3. 中小企業本身也要具有為顧客解決問題的能力，提高自身企業在產業價值鏈的不被替代性，才可以以結盟的力量對抗跨國企業的訴訟。 4. 當面對專利訴訟時，應該要立即應對，不管是與對方和解、進行反訴、舉發對方專利、變更製程或是商業結盟等，不可以等待訴訟結果。 5. 所有專利訴訟還是要以成本考量為依歸，一旦預期獲益小於訴訟成本時，企業應衡量是否應該繼續訴訟。 / Taiwan corporations have always been at a disadvantage behind foreign companies when it comes to the protection of intellectual property rights. The media repeats the stereotype that most cases of patent infringements between foreign companies and Taiwan corporations end up with costly settlements from Taiwan corporations. Moreover, patent violations are widely regarded as problems exclusive to the high-tech industry and have nothing to do with traditional industries. The Kinik Company, one of the traditional industries, surprisingly prevailed in a patent litigation dispute with the world renown, 3M Corporation. Not only did the Kinik Company successfully claim a settlement fee from its opponent, but also that it garnered commercial benefits and recognition for challenging a foreign company on equal grounds. This research begins with the patent quality and the position of an industry in the industry value chain. This thesis will involve with domestic and international theories, secondary data, published studies and case interviews, analyzing what strategy the Kinik Company adopted in its patent litigation suit against the world renowned 3M Corporation. The study will provide useful reference for Taiwan corporations of similar situations. The major findings are as follows: 1. The higher quality of the patents an industry possesses, the more leverage the industry will possess in a patent litigation. However, a good Claim Interpretation can supplement patent quality inadequacies and gain grounds during patent litigation, thereby winning a favorable judgment. 2. The industry’s positions in the value chain closely correspomd to its inclination to proceed with the patent litigation. The higher position it is situated in the industry value chain, the greater the downstream corporations depend on its survival and the more support it will garner to proceed with patent litigation. 3. A corporation’s ultimate goal is to maximize profits, and so a corporation weighs more on commercial profits than social justice. When the cost of litigation falls below expected benefits, the corporation will pursue litigation. On the other hand, when the costs of litigation exceed expected benefits, corporations will forgo litigation. 4. Since the ultimate goal of a patent litigation is to fight for bargaining chips, the defendant must react immediately (putting forth counter claims, forming a strategic alliance, immediately switching production techniques, invalidating the opponent’s patent etc.) when being sued for patent violations, even if it believed that there was no violation at all. Never wait for judgments to react. 5. Choosing a favorable location and approach for a patent litigation will increase the odds as well as bargaining chips over commercial benefits. 6. A favorable judgment from a patent litigation improves an industry’s market share, share price and other financial indicators, especially for smaller companies. This research offers the following suggestions for the industries: 1. When small and medium enterprises are involved in patent litigations initiated by multinational corporations, they must make certain whether they did the violation in the first place, and whether they possess any patent that can be used for a counter claim. 2. Always choose professional and experienced lawyers and expert witnesses for patent litigations. Do not risk losing big over cost considerations. 3. Small and medium enterprises should also develop problem-solving skills for their customers. The only way to fight against a multinational patent litigation is to become indispensable within the industry value chain and to be backed by a powerful alliance. 4. React immediately to any patent litigation: to make settlements, to proceed with a counter claim, to invalidate the opponents’ patent, to switch production techniques, or form commercial alliances. Never wait for judgments. 5. Evaluate all patent litigations based on costs and benefits. Once the expected benefits become less than the costs of litigation, the decision makers must ponder whether to pursue litigation or not.