傳統涉外侵權行為準據法之選法，係依侵權行為地、法庭地、侵權行為地及法庭地併用來決定。以侵權行為地來選法，係指以行為事實發生地法來決定該侵權行為之成立及效力。適用行為地法的優點，是其結果對於判決結果可預測其可能性，避免法庭的選擇及法律的適用有一致性；缺點是侵權行為地常與當事人無實質上牽連關係，做為裁判當事人權利義務之準據法，不足以保護當事人權利。把所有侵權行為類型，一律以事實發生地法為準據法恐有不妥。例如製造者責任、名譽或信用的侵害、不正競爭等等侵權類型，應選擇與該類型侵權行為特徵相應的法律為準據法較為妥適。 美國於1960年代以後多已不再採行為地法，取而代之的是最重要牽連關係理論。法院選擇某一法律關係的準據法時，要綜合分析與該法律關係有關的各種因素，從質與量的角度將主客觀連結因素進行權衡，尋找或確定那一國家或法域與案件之事實和當事人有最重要牽連關係。最重要牽連關係理論優點在於選法規則具彈性、法制正規化；而缺點在於最重要關係標準過於抽象，法官在審理案件時，選擇法律若無一定的判斷標準，易流於形式及恣意。 我國涉外民事法律適用法現行條文第九條就因侵權行為而生之債，原則上採侵權行為地法。有關涉外侵權行為之損害賠償，我國法律及侵權行為地法均認為構成侵權行為者，不論行為地或結果發生地其一發生在我國，始得適用我國法律為請求損害賠償。惟採侵權行為地法，有時會發生不合理之結果。因此，涉外民事法律適用法修正草案爰參考奧地利國際私法第四十八條第一項、德國民法施行法第四十一條等立法例之精神，酌採最重要牽連關係理論，於但書規定另有關係最切之法律者，依該法律，以濟其窮。 我國的學者將分別適用法律(dépeçage)譯成「法律適用之分割方法」，美國學者認為就各個議題分別探討的選法分析方式對於解決現代的複雜法律訴訟具有重要性。分別適用法律制度的目的在於法律產生真衝突的情況下，分析出各個不同的特定議題，並適用有真正利益的法域法律。美國聯邦法院未曾使用過分別適用法律，各州的上訴法院及最高法院對於分別適用法律亦僅止於解釋何謂分別適用法律而已。分別適用法律恐會導致不符法律目的，然部分學者仍認為考量相關州的政策、保護正當的期待利益、特定法律領域的基本政策、結果的確定性、可預測性及統一性及適用法律便宜性等，似可採分別適用法律來解決法律之適用。我國最高法院97年度台上字第1838號及96年度台上字第1804號判決，擬嘗試跳脫我國涉外民事法律適用法，參考外國分別適用法律的（dépeçage）的法律制度，以突破傳統的準據法選法理論。 我國的涉外民事法律適用法的修正討論中，並沒有提到分別適用法律的問題。修正草案在有關消滅時效部分的議題，將分別適用法律特別提出討論，嘗試著要獨立規定準據法選擇的方式。涉外民事法律適用法修正條文草案第35條規定，請求權之消滅時效，依該請求權所由發生之法律關係所應適用之法律。其理由在於請求權之消滅時效，因各國關於其法律效果之規定不同，國際私法上有認定其為實體問題者，亦有以之為程序問題者。消滅時效規定於我國實體法，因此認定其為實體問題。由於消滅時效係針對特定之請求權而發生，而請求權又為法律關係效力之一部分，故應依其請求權所由發生之法律關係定其準據法。 立法者若認為消滅時效的問題有獨立認定準據法的必要性，應採用分別適用法律的方法，在各種法律關係中抽離出來，獨立認定其應適用的準據法為宜。在廣泛承認分別適用法律制度之前，我國或許可以考慮對於涉外侵權行為分為責任的成立及損害賠償的部分，分別規定應適用的準據法；前者依照我國原本的準據法選擇方式，後者之損害賠償認定的方式，則依照受害人常居所地或是本國法為標準。 / The law of selecting of the traditional tort applicable law concerning foreign affairs, and use the decision in accordance with spot of tort, spot of court, spot of tort and court. Selected the law by the tort, it is to determine establishment and effect of this tort by behavioral spot law of fact. Person who covered by behavior advantage of law, it is result that can predict possibility of the judgment, avoid the suitable to apply having consistency of choice and law of the court. The shortcoming is that the tort has not often involved the relation with the party in fact, as the applicable laws of party's rights and obligations of the judgment, it is non- enough to protect party's right. All tort types, it is probably improper to regard spot law of the fact as the applicable law without exception. Manufacturer responsibility, reputation or infringement, person who compete for type of infringing of credit, it is comparatively proper for applicable law to choose the law of the tort with corresponding characteristic with this type. It no longer adopted behavior law already after 1960 in U.S, the substitute is most important to involve relation theory. When the court chooses the applicable law of a certain legal relation, various factors of wanting comprehensive analysis to be related to this legal relation, will link the factor to weigh subjectively and objectively in terms of quality and quantity, will look for or confirm there is the most important relation of involving in the facts and parties of that land of country or legal field and case. Involve and concern theory advantage lying in selecting the regulation to be elastic, legal system regularization the most importantly. And the shortcoming lies in the most important relation standard is too abstract, the judge, while hearing a case, if do not have certain judging standard to choose law, it is apt to become a mere formality and wilfulness. The civil law concerning foreign affairs in our country is covered by article 9 of current clause and its debt cause of tort, adopt the law of tort spot in principle. About the compensation for damage of tort concerning foreign affairs, the person who forms tort for our country's law and tort, whether no matter the behavior or consequence one in the spot happens in our country, can begin to be applicable to the law of our country in order to ask for compensation for damage. Only person who adopt the law of tort, the unreasonable result takes place sometimes. So, concerning foreign affairs civil law suitable to apply law revision draft consult private international law of Austrian, 48th item 1, Germany civil law, article 41 legislative spirit of example, and adopt the relation theory, the persons who stipulate the law cut in the proviso most that there are relations besides the most importantly, depend on this law, in order to solve the conflict. Will the scholar of our country the applicable law of the difference (dépeçage) translate into ' the method of cutting apart that the law is applicable to ', what the American scholar is thought each topic to probe into separately selects law to analyze the way has importance in solving the modern complicated lawsuit. Differentiate applicable law of system produce situation that analyze each different particular conflict topics, is applicable to the law with real interests. American federal court has not used the differentiate the applicable law, the appellate court of every state and the Supreme Court also only explaining what it is mean. Differentiating the applicable law will probably result in not according with the legal purpose, but some scholars think that consider the policies of the relevant states, it suit to protect the proper expectation interests, basic policy, determinacy of the result, predictability, unity and applicable law in the particular legal field, can adopt, differentiate applicable law solve to suitable to apply law. The judgment of No. 1804 and No. 1838 of the Supreme Judicial Court of our country, is adjudicated on the platform try to take off our country concerning foreign affairs civil law suitable to apply law, consult foreign country differentiate the applicable law (dépeçage), for being which break through traditional select law theory. The amendments of Law Governing the Application of Laws to Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements of our country has not referred to the question of the applicable law of the difference. The draft is in the topic about the fulfillment of prescription, will differentiate the applicable law and especially propose discussing, the attempt should stipulate the way in which the applicable law choose independently. Concerning the 35th regulation of clause draft of law's revision, ask for the fulfillment of prescription of right, in accordance with asking for the law that right should be applicable to by the legal relation happening. Its reason lies in asking for the fulfillment of prescription of right, because various countries are about stipulating the difference of their legal results, assert it is entity's question. There are persons who regards it as procedure question on the private international law. The fulfillment of prescription and stipulate in the substantive law of our country, so assert it is entity's question. The fulfillment of prescription takes place to particular request, and a part of legal relation, so should be made its applicable law by the legal relation of request. If legislators think the question of eliminating prescription asserts the necessity of the applicable law independently, should adopt the way of differentiating the applicable law, release in various legal relations before coming out, assert the applicable law that it should be applicable independently. Before acknowledging differentiating the system of applicable law extensively, perhaps our country can consider that is divided into the establishment of responsibility and part of compensation for damage the tort concerning foreign affairs, should part regulation applicable law, the former choose the way according to our country's original applicable law, the way asserted in compensation for damage of the latter, often the spot of dwelling or this national law is a standard according to the victim.

線上購物之便利、迅速及不受地域限制之無遠弗屆，促使利用網路平台消費之人口極速增長，網路世界之法律問題自應為傳統民事法律所規制，然網路虛擬之特性終非以實體生活為對象之民法理論體系架構所能完整涵蓋，本文所論之線上拍賣服務提供者對使用者所為商標侵權之法律責任即為著例。 　　商標權人捨直接侵權人而向拍賣網站經營者請求之訴訟在我國境內雖有發生，法院卻未直接闡述見解，而於美國及歐盟境內之德國、比利時、法國、英國等處均有法院作成判決，歐盟所屬之歐洲法院對此亦表達意見，學說則早自1990年代末即有所討論，近年更是漸趨熱烈，各式見解相互爭辯激盪，足供我國未來發展參酌。 　　本文自拍賣網站與使用者之關係出發，依序探討、羅列可供適用之民事法律法規，以及國內外法院判決處理，綜合參考國內外學說見解及實務發展經驗，總結於我國法之適用，分為責任成立、侵害除去及預防可能之檢討，以及對未來制訂一般性免責條款三方面討論，冀望得以作為尋求電子商務發展、權利人保障與兼顧使用者便利三贏局面之參考。

科技進步神速且日新月異，電腦大數據資訊的傳播與統計資料，可以與物聯網結合，方便消費者一系列之採購需求，各行各業也莫不受其恩賜，但同時可能讓個人隱私權的保密受到威脅。同理，今日預防醫學大數據比起傳統生物統計學，可以處理更多複雜的生物統計項目，包括昔日公共衛生之生物統計學所難以處理的複雜DNA序列，而加以收集、歸納、分析與應用於基因流行病學、癌症基因之篩選、個人化醫療的用藥、老人之長期照顧、孕婦產檢、新生兒疾病篩檢等，並且越來越蓬勃發展。 預防醫學大數據主要是由三種類型之電腦資訊所建構而成：(一)病歷，必須將紙本病歷之數據轉為電子檔案，才可能對於所收集之資料加以歸納分析，形成日後具備預知能力的大數據。(二)病患提供之DNA，收集病患提供之DNA亦可作成具有預測能力的大數據，應用於未來人類基因缺陷之篩檢或治療，以及提供個人化醫學更精準的治療。(三)傳染病之通報案件，作成預防醫學大數據以利於調查疫情，亦有釐清何種因素促成疫情擴散之能力，進而實施衛教宣導，讓民眾知道當地疫情狀況，並貢獻預防方法及加強自我保護。 因此，預防醫學大數據的DNA序列也涉及隱私權之保障，雖指紋、虹膜與DNA序列皆可用來辨識個人身份，對尋人偵辦法律案件皆有幫助，但唯獨DNA序列可用於大眾疾病之預測以及個人化醫學之預防與治療，是人類生物辯識系統中可謂重中之重，不僅可以依此DNA序列尋人辦案，更可以評估個人健康狀況與未來壽命，具備有「預測能力」。因此，不論病患日後之求職履歷或投保，皆可能因DNA序列之外洩，而遭遇到主管的監督或審核者的排斥。將來病患對DNA序列所要求的保密程度會因此更加嚴謹，使得原先醫病之間的隱私權關係，提昇到另一更高的層次。 整個預防醫學大數據基因庫之建立如同水壩，在研發基因庫的單位當然希望「上游」的自願者欲提供自身之DNA人數，可以源源不絕，以增大基因庫的量，期待有更多新的發現。因此，基因庫之「蒐集端」應該以其他國家建立基因庫建置前之規劃或與民眾有公開且相互瞭解之溝通，來進行研討。在「中游」之「管理端」，著重資料之保密與更新，遇到「選擇退出」的民眾，則必須將選擇退出之民眾資料徹底銷毀。如果保密工作未做好，不但自願者會減少，甚至會影響已經參與者繼續參加之意願，正如同水壩有管理上之缺口，容易潰堤。至於「下游」之「應用端」須考慮DNA用於病患篩檢結果，是否影響其日後生活與人際關係。 不論「蒐集端」之提供者對收集者之無私供出自身病歷與DNA資料；「管理端」之對已經提供巨量自願者的DNA的資料，於固定時間與自願者的日常習慣、作息或歷年來的病歷記錄作交叉比對，經常年累月之採取自願者的DNA與更新的日常習慣或最新之病歷記錄作交叉比對，如此不斷更新(up-date)來取得統計學上有意義的DNA序列與某疾病多因子的關聯性，對自願者之病歷與DNA資料有保密義務；或是「應用端」測得DNA後之結果，揭發於受測者知曉；此三階段之流程，無不涉及到個人之隱私權。 世界各國對基因數據的保障有不同立法之思維：德國對基因數據的蒐集及利用，從「個人資訊自決權」著眼，看重於外顯的自由行為是否同意來決定，必須與「告知後同意」始能蒐集、管理與利用的程序保護連結在一起，之後才有權利對抗的問題。然而美國是從個人的「隱私權」出發，強調個人內心私密空間不容任何人干擾，保障個人人格的最後一道城牆，凡侵入或侵占城牆內的任何行為，皆構成侵權行為。 本文解說出「國家防疫」、「個人疾病基因隱私權」與「臨床醫學研究」，此三者間的「衡平原則」：以預防醫學大數據運用而言，所涉及社會秩序公共利益，流行性傳染病之通報，個人「隱私權」之保障，臨床醫學的研究，聯合國宣言等，亦合併本文對國內外案例判決之評析以探究之。 最新之歐洲聯盟執行委員會（European Commission）就「歐盟資料保護規範」（General Data Protection Regulation ; GDPR）之條文內容，使歐盟新個人資料保護法擴及至非歐盟企業也一體適用的法律，已經於2016年年初獲得確定後，並且於2018年正式生效，尤其是法規要求於資料洩漏時必須在72小時內發出通知，知會其所屬企業公司個體、行政主管機關及個資當事人，以及必須遵守資料傳輸的重要相關規定，於本文亦有詳細介紹。 我國最新的醫療法第82條已經於民國107年1月24日公布施行，內容對醫師的損害賠償責任及刑事責任規定為：「醫療業務之施行，應善盡醫療上必要之注意。醫事人員因執行醫療業務致生損害於病人，以故意或違反醫療上必要之注意義務且逾越合理臨床專業裁量所致者為限，負損害賠償責任。醫事人員執行醫療業務因過失致病人死傷，以違反醫療上必要之注意義務且逾越合理臨床專業裁量所致者為限，負刑事責任」。此次修法之目的在於：近年醫療爭議事件動輒以「刑事方式」提起爭訟，不僅無助於民眾釐清真相獲得損害之填補，反而導致醫師採取防禦性醫療措施，修正醫療刑法「過失」之要件，即以「違反醫療上必要之注意義務且逾越合理臨床專業裁量」定義現行條文所稱之「過失」。但是，本文所引用國內外之法院判決，皆為民法與行政法的範圍與案例，即使在最新之醫療法第82條公布之後，亦不影響本文的主張。 本文結論分兩大節提出見解與建議：第一節內容，著重於綜合國內外之民法與行政法的案例判決，以提出評析與見解。第二節內容，從「上游」源頭增加預防醫學大數據「蒐集端」基因庫之泉源，提出建議，以增加我國大數據基因庫的量。透過基因(DNA)之捐贈，可以使「上游」之預防醫學大數據「蒐集端」的源頭能夠源源不絕。「前人種樹，後人與前人皆可以受惠乘涼、利益共享」，況且「預防又勝於治療」；不論國家社會或個人，對於如何促進預防醫學大數據之茁壯與永續經營發展，並且兼顧病患隱私權之保障，本文也提供了最佳的方法與展望。

智慧財產案件審理法第16條揭示當事人抗辯智慧財產權有應撤銷、廢止之原因者，法院應就其主張或抗辯有無理由自為判斷，不適用相關法律停止訴訟程序之規定。前項情形，法院認有撤銷之原因時，智慧財產權人於該民事訴訟中不得對於他造主張權利。上開規定之意旨在於使同一智慧財產權所生之紛爭得於同一訴訟程序中一次解決，以對智慧財產權作有效保護。 依據上開規定，專利有效性之議題即可能為專利侵權訴訟程序及舉發程序所審理。兩程序審理之情形下，專利有效性之認定即可能會因對同一證據事實有不同見解而使認定結果產生歧異（嚴格定義下之判決歧異）或因證據/請求權基礎之不同而產生歧異（假性之判決歧異）。 民事法院和行政機關/法院於發明、新型及新式樣專利對專利有效性具兩歧認定之比例分別為所有抗辯專利有效性案件之6.8%、16%及12%。具歧異認定之案件中約有8%係因對同一證據之處理方式不同。約66%之案件係起因於呈送之證據有別及主張之撤銷理由不同，而此歧異認定或可於後續程序化解。另約有8%歧異認定之案件係因智慧局之見解受到先前經濟部對該見解之拘束，此分歧認定之結果或需藉由救濟程序才得化解。又約有16%具歧異認定之案件係因民事法院非以舉發程序中構成「舉發成立」之要件審酌系爭專利是否具撤銷事由，此歧異認定之結果尚需仰賴救濟程序始得化解。 民事法院倘非以舉發成立要件審酌專利有效性，則其審酌範疇可能涵蓋：得據以舉發事由、未達得據以舉發標準之事由、專利法及施行細則中得據以使申請案不予專利或不受理之事由。而有違誠信原則之事由亦可能受到審查，使系爭專利有不可執行之虞。倘民事訴訟有效性抗辯得涵蓋上開事由，則可預見本質不良但被智慧局誤准之專利將有去除之途徑，公眾利益即得以維護；專利申請人於申請過程中較可能考慮遵循誠信原則；且專利糾紛得以完全於一訴訟程序一併解決。專利環境或可能朝優質化、誠信化及效率化發展。於此架構下，侵權訴訟專利有效性抗辯機制及舉發程序之雙軌制審理即各有實質存在意義。 專利權人於台灣侵權訴訟具專利有效性抗辯案件之勝訴比約10%；敗訴案件中，發明、新型及新式樣專利被認定具無效事由之比例約為48%、65%及40%。審理法施行以來，舉發申請案之案件量約僅減少6%至7%，或隱含專利侵權訴訟不僅未於一定程度取代舉發制度更可能因而使當事人必需同時面對侵權訴訟與舉發程序雙軌戰場之處境。 審理法第16條之施行加快民事訴訟審結速度，達到迅速實現訴訟當事人權利保護之立法目的。而專利權所生之紛爭於同一訴訟程序中一次解決之目的，依檢驗角度之不同而有截然不同之結果，因此或可說未全然達到紛爭一次解決之立法目的。 / Article 16 of Intellectual Property Case Adjunction Act in Taiwan reveals that when a party claims or defends that an intellectual property right shall be cancelled, the court shall decide based on the merit of the case and the relevant laws concerning the stay of an action shall not apply.　Under the circumstances in the preceding paragraph, the holder of the intellectual property right shall not claim any rights during the civil action against the opposing party where the court has recognized the grounds for cancellation of the intellectual property right. The main purpose of the article is to solve the disputes over Intellectual Property Right in one litigation proceeding so as to protect the intellectual property right effectively. According to said article, the validity issue of a patent may be dealt with under civil litigation and invalidation proceedings. Under the circumstances, the decisions on the validity issue of a patent may be diverged due to different perceptions on the same evidence/fact (defined in this article as “actual decision divergence”) or different submitted evidences or instituted grounds (defined in this article as “fake decision divergence”). With respect to invention, utility model, and design patents, about 6.8%, 16% and 12% of cases with invalidity defense respectively had decision divergence between civil court and administrative organization/court. Among patents with decision divergence, around 8% of the patents were due to different perceptions of the same evidence. About 66% of the patents were deemed differently due to different evidences and instituted grounds. This discrepancy may be resolved in subsequent proceedings. Around 8% of the patents having divergent decisions were resulted from that the opinion of Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) is confined by that in a previous administrative action issued by its superior organization, the Board of Appeal. This discrepancy may need to be resolved through a remedial procedure. Approximately 16% of the patents were determined differently because the civil court adopted different standards for initiating an invalidation action. This type of discrepancy may only be resolved through a remedial procedure. When the civil court uses its own standards in determining the validity issue of the patent in question, the scope of judicial review might include: the grounds of invalidation proceedings, the grounds of invalidation proceedings with loosened standards, the grounds attributed to a patent being rejected or an application to be inacceptable to TIPO based on Patent Act or the Enforcement Rules of Patent Act. In addition, inequitable conduct might also be reviewed. Under the circumstances, defective patents have a chance to be removed, a duty of candor and good faith would be more likely to be followed during prosecution; patent disputes are able to be reviewed entirely in one proceeding. It is expected that the quality of the patent system would be improved. Moreover, either the invalidity defense mechanism in infringement litigation, or the invalidation proceeding serves its own purpose. For patent infringement cases with invalidity defense, plaintiffs won about 10% of the cases. Among the cases lost by plaintiffs, the patent at issue deemed by civil court as invalid accounted for about 48%, 65% and 40% for invention, utility model and design patents respectively. Since the IP Case Adjudication Act took effect, the number of invalidation cases has decreased about 6-7%, which might indicate that the invalidity defense mechanism in infringement litigation does not replace the invalidation proceeding. The regulation of Article 16 of IP Case Adjudication Act speeds up civil proceedings indicating that the legislative purpose of providing effective protection to parties in IP litigation may be realized. However, the legislative purpose of solving patent disputes in one proceeding may not be achieved fully as the test results vary on the basis of different evaluation criteria.

專利保險可分為「專利侵權責任保險」及「專利訴訟費用保險」。狹義之專利訴訟費用保險係指為專利權人、專屬被授權人、或經明確受託訴權之非專屬被授權人等規劃之保險。該些被保險人欲請求專利侵權損害賠償時，得向保險人請求給付律師費、訴訟費用或仲裁費用；惟有實務保單條款約定保險人得請求分配被保險人受領之損害賠償金，此約定是否能通過我國公序良俗條款之檢驗，不無疑義。至於專利侵權責任保險，係為潛在侵權人所規劃之保險。此類保險之承保範圍雖及於侵權損害賠償，但就我國保險法制而言，其實務保單條款仍有許多調整空間。其中最主要者，係被保險人所為確認專利無效等請求所生費用，於實務保單中受保險金額之限制；然其既具有損害避免或減輕之性質，於我國保險法，不僅保險人有償還責任，其償還數額與賠償金額合計即使超過保險金額，仍應償還。

我國民事侵權行為之「過失」概念，向來學者均未有深入闡釋，其等雖均認為民事法與刑事法的規範目的有異，卻仍往往援引刑法第14條過失的定義加以適用。在民事侵權行為「過失」概念欠缺其應有的獨立內涵之情形下，法院實務上的操作更因此勝敗兩異，喧騰一時的玻璃娃娃案 即為一例。而民事侵權行為「過失」概念不明確，不僅在一般的侵權行為案件中，造成法院實務操作困難，在專業的醫療訴訟中，也出現了法官嘗試用不明確的「過失」概念去決定一個陌生的專業領域有無過失的不適當。 因此，首先要解決的問題是民事侵權行為「過失」概念之內涵如何？與刑事過失概念是否同義？又，過失概念中在英美立法例上的發展均從「注意義務存在」轉向以「注意義務違反」的討論為重心，論者又均謂是否違反注意義務的判斷，應依事件的特性，分別加以考量，因行為人之職業、危害之嚴重性、被害法益之輕重、防範避免危害之代價，而有所不同。因此，在專業的醫療訴訟中有哪些判準是有利於法院判斷醫療訴訟中醫師是否違反注意義務，急待釐清！我國學者未見有更深入的討論，因此醫療訴訟中是否違反注意義務所應有的判準，特別是醫界的「醫療常規」能否作為法院在個案中的「當為行為」的標準，頗值吾人深入探討。 本文所要討論的是關於法院能否審酌「醫療常規」合理性的問題，在美國法的發展上，有著名的Helling v. Carey案，法院以醫師所遵行的醫療常規對於該案原告的保護並不足夠，認為被告醫師主張已經遵行醫療常規而無過失，並不可採，Helling案之後法院一度有支持Helling Rule的判決實務，但是後續發展卻都一面倒地採取與Helling Rule不同的看法，甚至有指出Helling案的法院嘗試去審酌醫療常規是相當不可採的作法；而在我國法上，也出現了相對應的」台安醫院維他命事件，被告醫師也同樣以其已經遵行醫療常規的作法主張其並無過失，但對於醫療常規是否可採，法院在來來回回七個審級間也如同美國法的發展上有一度地掙扎，本案雖未確定，但在更二審即最末次事實審時，法院明確地指出醫師依其經驗與專業知識以及醫療常規的作法而行為，對於不可預見的風險並不負過失責任。 本文以為Helling Rule雖然在美國判例法的討論上都是指稱醫師不能以其已遵行醫療常規主張其行為並無過失，但是從Helling案的個案事實觀察，可以發現Helling案的法院其實並非真正去審酌醫療常規的合理性，相反地，Helling案法院主要指摘的是醫師在病患將近十年的看診期間，均未善盡其應有的注意義務，為病患作進一步的檢查，只一昧地以醫療常規的作法為病患診療，但經過十年的期間，病患之病症均未有改善，任何一般人都會警覺到常規的作法已不適用，醫師未盡注意義務顯然，應認為有過失。也就是Helling案的法院是針對其個案的情況闡述法院固應尊重醫療常規，但是醫療常規在適用上仍應依個案不同情形有所考量。我國的台安醫院維他命事件，也是我國法院對於應尊重醫療常規的表示。 本文立於此比較法的基礎，認為醫療訴訟中如何判定是否違反注意義務，固然可以形成一些判準，但是法院畢竟是醫療之外行人，在思考適用這些判準時，仍然會面臨醫療專業知識進入門檻的困難，不容易作成判斷。特別是醫學本身是一門發展長久、縝密、且進步快速的科學，醫界此一專門職業團體，長久發展下來，在其執業上早已由其職業團體內的成員，匯集其共同之臨床經驗與專業知識形成其執業所需的一套流程標準，也就是「醫療常規」，而醫療常規其實就是醫療此一專門職業團體的集體智慧之結晶，也代表了醫界在其長期發展的經驗中，已經在個案病人利益、其他病人利益、醫療成本有限、有效醫療等等的前提下，濃縮出的平衡思量的結果。尤其是當醫療專業團體對於某個診療方式或程序，已經形成一致地、明確地共識與作法時，法院是否仍有可供公評之理由作成相異之見解呢？亦或此時應有法律謙抑之思考，予以專業慣行多一分之尊重？

本文旨在探討專利侵權損害賠償請求之範圍及賠償數額之計算方法，以我國法律規定及實務運作情形為主，並比較美國、中國大陸的規定及實務運作情形，尤其智慧財產法院自97年7月1日成立後，其在損害賠償方面之實務見解是否比過去數十年的實務運作有更創新之看法，茲為我國將來專利法修法之參考，並與實務運作相互印證。第一章緒論，說明研究背景與動機，研究目的、研究方法及流程。第二章說明專利權之定義、種類，專利侵害之類型，專利鑑定、步驟、原則及我國的專利損害賠償制度。第三章則專以損害賠償額計算之規定及實務判決研究為主，並兼論及非財產上損害，如信譽損害、律師及其他費用等。第四章比較TRIPS、中國大陸及美國之規定，尤其以美國法及判決為重點，討論我國是否應如美國一樣，增訂合理權利金之條款，又合理權利金之達成是否應在兩造自由意願下簽訂，而不能受到訴訟之威脅。第五章以過去一年來最新成立智慧財產法院判決分析比較，分析是否與之前的實務判決有不同之作法及是否已大幅改善之前實務的缺點，提出個人看法。最後一章則提出本文建議的解決方案或可供臺灣專利法修正草案之參考。 透過本文將可瞭解過去各地方法院關於專利侵權之判決、美國實務判決之立論基礎，並與智慧財產法院成立後之最新出爐判決相互比較，以資作為將來修正專利法之參考建議，並期許智慧財產法院將來在專利侵權訴訟更能保障專利權人之權利，使專利權人獲得應有之賠償，願意投入更多的資金及研發人員，創造有價值的專利，以促進科技發展，造福人類。 關鍵字：專利侵權、智慧財產、損害賠償、所失利益、合理權利金、智慧財產法院 / This study aims to explore the ambit of the patent infringement compensation and the method to calculate the damages award for the patent infringement. This thesis focuses on Taiwan’s patent law and judicial practice, compared to the regulations and practices of TRIPS , the United States, and the mainland China. Besides, with the establishment of the Intellectual Property Court since July 1, 2008 in Taiwan, did this new Taiwan Intellectual Property Court have made more innovative decisions than the past few decades ? Chapter I is the introduction of this study’s background and motivation, research purpose, research methodology and process. Chapter II refers to the definition of the patent right, types of the patent infringement, steps & principles of the patent infringement identification, and our country's patent infringement relief system. Chapter III is dedicated to the calculation of the damages award in the amount based on the provisions and court’s decision, and to deal with non-property damages, such as the reputation damages, legal fees and other costs. Chapter IV compares the regulations and practices of the TRIPS, the United States and the mainland China, in particular the United States court’s decisions.Whether our patent law should adopt the theory of reasonable royalty, as the law or judicial enforcement in the United States? Should a reasonable royalty be based on two parties under the free wills but not by the threat of litigations.Chapter V analyzes the outcomes of the Intellectual Property Court’s rulings in the past one year. Are their rulings different from the past practices? Whether they can greatly avoid the criticisms of the prior practice;Also, I will advance my personal view in this chapter. The final chapter of this thesis will put forward the proposals for the amendment to the Patent Law in Taiwan in the future.This thesis hopes to make you have a basic understanding of the past practices of the district court rulings in Taiwan, the comparisons of the practical theories in the United States, and the latest court rulings released by the Intellectual Property Court, for future reference of the amendment to the patent law.And hope that the Intellectual Property Court could even more protect the rights of patent holders in the future, so that the inventors may obtain adequate compensation, therefore they will be willing to invest more capital in R & D to create more valuable patents for the benefit of the people. Key words: patent infringement, intellectual property, compensatory damages, lost profits, reasonable royalty, Intellectual Property Court.

為了專利法制現代化，美國、中國大陸與台灣均進行專利修法，並修訂損害賠償計算。本文試圖以三者修法目的為思考評析損害賠償計算之修訂，並類型化分析三者相關規範。本文探討美國司法實務所發展的分攤法則及整體市場價值法則，而在建立更有效率之專利制度的目標下，美國專利法第284條並不適合納入上述法則。本文歸納美國專利懲罰性損害賠償制度之三種認定故意的標準。第一，傳統的故意侵害論，Underwater Devices案「充分注意之確切義務」之標準為故意侵害設立了一個較低的門檻，比較類似過失。第二，Seagate案的故意侵害論，為客觀的輕率。第三，專利改革的故意侵害論，三種故意樣態下之客觀的輕率；但可能因此限制法官的裁量權。中國大陸在提高自主創新能力與建設創新型國家之知識產權戰略目標下，第三次專利法修正將於2009年施行。新專利法第65條將現行最高人民法院司法解釋規定的定額賠償提高到專利法層次，且提高法定額度。從訴訟成本考量，由法院定額不失為較經濟的方法；然而，此方法亦有可能會有因非根據證據而落入主觀判斷賠償數額的缺點。新專利法第65條並明訂賠償數額還應當包括權利人為制止侵權行為所支付的合理開支，惟其計量方法仍不明確。雖然新專利法沒有納入懲罰性損害賠償，於提高法定賠償額度與加重其他相關民事與行政責任之配套修改下，新專利法有提高侵權人金錢負擔的效果，應有較大的嚇阻功能，進而鼓勵創新。台灣在因應國內科技政策與國際規範發展，及配合智慧財產法院設立的背景下，提出專利法修正草案，其中建議現行專利法第85條新增「以相當於實施該發明專利所得收取之權利金數額為其損害」規定。然而，針對權利金的合理性及是否以合理權利金作為補償底限，修正草案並沒有明確規定。此外，修正草案建議刪除懲罰性損害賠償，以回歸我國民事損害賠償制度。台灣專利侵害民事訴訟的成本與賠償金額並不高，也沒有敗訴方負擔對方律師費用的規定，在專利侵害全面除罪化之後，懲罰性損害賠償對侵害人可能形成一種「實質上額外的風險」，而非「僅是一種商業上的成本」，因而有其一定的功能意義。以專利法促進產業發展的目的考量，若沒有相關配套措施，實可考慮繼續保留現行懲罰性損害賠償制度。 / For modernization of patent laws, the United States, China and Taiwan are undergoing patent reform, each amending its damages provision. This thesis categorized forms of damages calculation in three countries, and tried to analyze its amendment from the perspective of patent reform in each country. This thesis analyzed the possible impact of specifying the apportionment rule and entire market value rule in Section 284, 35 United State Code. In addition, three standards of willful infringement with enhanced damages were concluded. First, the traditional willfulness doctrine in Underwater Devices case is the affirmative duty of due care which sets a lower threshold of willing infringement that is more akin to negligence. Second, willfulness in Seagate case requires at least an objective recklessness. Third, willfulness in Patent Reform Act of 2009 requires an objective recklessness in three different conditions; such proposal may restrict the discretion of the court. With national intellectual property strategy to improve the domestic capacity of innovation and to build an innovative country, the third amendment to Patent Act of the People's Republic of China becomes in effect in 2009. Article 65 in the new Chinese Patent Act codifies the statutory damages in the range of RMB 10,000 to 1,000,000, compared to the current range of RMB 5,000 to 500,000 provided by the Supreme People’s Court judicial interpretation. In the perspective of litigation costs, statutory damages award may be a more economic approach but subjective judgment could have implication caused by lack of factual evidence for damages calculation. Article 65 also codifies that the amount of compensation shall include reasonable cost for ceasing patent infringement by the right holder, however, how to measure the reasonable cost is not clear. Although the new Chinese Patent Act does not include punitive damages, the maximum statutory damages, other related civil liability and administrative penalty are increased. Such amendments may increase the pecuniary burden of the infringer and expect to lead to more deterrent effect on patent infringement and encourage innovation. In the context of international regulation change, national technology policy change and establishment of professional Intellectual Property Court, comprehensive review of Taiwanese Patent Act is ongoing. The proposed bill adds “equivalent amount of royalty for implementing the patent invention as damages” into Article 85 of current Taiwanese Patent Act. However, it is not clearly codified that a reasonable royalty must be justified and such royalty calculation is to set a floor for damages award. The proposed bill abandons punitive damages for willful infringement. In such proposal, the result of willful infringement may not be a substantial additional risk but only a cost of doing business, because the litigation cost and damages award are not so high, and there is no attorney fee award or criminal penalty in Taiwanese patent regulation system. Hence, reconsideration of retaining punitive damages is suggested.

隨著電腦化的普及，軟體程式控制的機器或日常生活用品亦成為經濟活動的主流。美國最高法院在1981年Diamond v. Diehr案中開啟電腦軟體程式可專利之先河。該案所請求之電腦軟體程式雖係利用數學公式計算橡膠固化的完成時間，但法院認為其專利請求並非主張該數學公式之獨占(pre-empt)使用權。相對的，發明人係主張排除他人使用該公式與該請求程式中所有步驟之聯結關係。本案對於軟體專利的標的適格(patent subject matter eligibility)作了相當明確的闡述與界定。 　1998年聯邦巡迴法院State Street Bank案提出「有用、具體、且實體的結果（UCT, useful, concrete and tangible result）」作為檢驗軟體專利的檢驗方法之後，聯邦巡迴法院在2008年的Bilski案又宣稱此一檢驗方法將不再適用於軟體專利審查。Bilski案與State Street Bank案的主要差別在前者專利範圍內，隻字未提是否使用電腦或其他硬體之技術手段或裝置(means)，以達成其發明之目的。其所請求專利方法之行為模式是否具有可重複性(repetitiveness)或具體性(concreteness)因此受到質疑。 　2007年發生AT & T控告微軟(Microsoft)侵犯其軟體專利權，本案經紐約地方法院及聯邦巡迴法院審理皆認為，微軟將包含AT & T語音文字轉換軟體在內的視窗作業系統光碟，交給國外電腦製造廠商複製安裝於電腦中出售，侵犯AT & T之專利權。雖然最高法院依據現行美國專利法271(f)規定，認為微軟僅交給原版光碟並未侵犯AT & T專利權，外國電腦廠商將微軟作業系統複製安裝於其他電腦出售係屬治外法權(extraterritoriality)法律適用問題。但最高法院亦表明，國會未來若能在271(f)加註組件另包括"資訊，指令"或"可用以產生組件之工具"，則上述情況即可能改觀。本案爭訟過程引發軟體實體性(tangibility)的廣泛討論。 　本文主要目的在探討有關軟體可專利性標的之適格(patentable subject matter eligibility)，包含實用性(applicability)、具體性(concreteness)及實體性(tangibility)等問題，從正反意見之比較分析中，希望能提供問題爭點一個更清礎的全貎，促成相關產學界對軟體專利作進一步的探討，供國內專利主管單位未來修法的參考，茲依序說明如下： 第一章　緒論 　　　　就本文研究之背景、動機、方法及目的分別加以說明。 第二章　軟體專利相關發明之概念 討論軟體可專利性之概念，對於相關軟體專利案例加以分析，探討可專利性之解釋依據及其範圍限制。 第三章　軟體專利標的之適格問題 從各國電腦相關軟體之專利規範出發，比較各國專利標的適格審查之異同，探討軟體專利標的適格之判別方式。對於專利之具體性(concreteness)、實體性(tangibility)及實用性(applicability)，透過各國審查規範之比較加以研究。關於可專利性之標的適格規範，我國與歐洲之專利法皆採用法定除外事項及負面表列方式，美國則採正面規範解釋，形成解釋空間上的差異。我國與歐洲在專利標的適格之解釋上雖較自由，美國則相較受拘束，但從各國公布的軟體專利審查基準的內容加以比較，其內容仍以美國之審查基準為主導。 第四章　軟體專利要件之審查 從各國專利審查基準之規範分析專利審查准駁之要件，並從實務觀點對專利審查提出評析意見。由於我國與歐洲之專利法係以產業利用性為授予專利權之基本原則，因此，本章亦一併與專利要件之新穎性、進步性及充分揭露等規定事項一起討論，探討其間之差異性與優缺點。 第五章　軟體專利之法律適用 2008年10月聯邦巡迴法院在Bilski案的判決中宣稱軟體專利須符合一定條件才能取得專利，對於1998年State Street Bank案以具體性、實體性、實用性的檢驗方法，今後將不再適用。在2007年發生之AT & T與MICROSOFT的侵權訴訟，其中對於軟體是不是一種實體的組成元件(tangible component)有相當詳細的說明與爭辯。本章希望從相關判決理由中，獲致軟體專利較明確的法律關係。對於軟體專利侵權之實務方面，本章亦以TGIP與AT & T之侵權訴訟，探討美國在專利範圍解釋(claim construction)及均等論(doctrine of equivalence)之應用及其實務上發生之法律適用。 第六章　結論與未來展望 軟體創作屬著作權保護的對象之一，通常以目的碼的比對作為軟體著作權侵權與否的判別依據。自1970年代開始，軟體專利一直圍繞著有關可專利性標的適格(patentable subject matter eligibility)的問題打轉，美國從1981年的Diehr案到2008年的Bilski案歷經二十幾年的時間與爭訟，仍無法獲致明確的結論可供公眾遵循。本文探討軟體的標的適格問題，以及涉及軟體專利本質的實體性問題，從各國軟體專利法制之比較，希望能提供前述爭點一個清礎的原貎，促成相關產學界對軟體專利作深入的探討，作為將來國內專利修法的參考，使我國軟體專利法制能站上世界科技產業競爭的高點。 / After years of debates over the patentability of software related patent, the first software related patent was finally allowed in the United States in 1981. And in 1998, the Federal Circuit decided in State Street case that the software patent is patentable if it passes the test, namely, to produce “useful, concrete and tangible (UCT) result.” However, in 2008, the Federal Circuit reasoned in Bilski case that it would be inadequate to adopt that test in the future, and decided not to use it any longer. While focusing on the subject matter of patentability issues, the Microsoft v AT & T case is being selected herewith for its full scale debates over the essence of software tangibility. Although the Supreme Court held that Microsoft's conduct falls outside 35 USC 271(f)'s compass would be resolved by the presumption against extraterritoriality, the holding also revealed that Congress might have included within 271(f)'s compass “information, instructions, or tools from which those components readily may be generated.” It did not. This thesis aims to deliberate on the patentability of software related patent, primarily on the applicability, concreteness and tangibility of the software patent. The author wishes to provide a comprehensible scenario on the patentability of software related patent through analysis and comparison of the subject matters presented in the context of the thesis.

近年來，隨著少子化、高齡化出現，飼養寵物之人開始日漸增多，許多人將寵物視為家庭成員的一份子，對其呵護備至。家庭成員可以透過人身保險中之人壽保險、健康保險、意外保險，以及現行全民健康保險，來面對生活中突如其來的意外。推及至寵物，由於其並非全民健康保險保障之主體，又寵物之醫療費用相對高昂，因此飼主在飼養寵物時，可能因寵物一時之疾病而陷入經濟困難，另一方面，寵物無論係醫療費用抑或喪葬費用、因疏失導致第三人損害等各方面，均可能造成飼主財力上之負擔，因此寵物保險應運而生，提供飼主將危險自行保留以外之其他選擇。 本文將以寵物產業市場為出發，探討現行寵物保險當前之發展現況，而由於當前販售寵物保險之保險公司為數不多，因此將針對現行販售之保單條款做出比較，以判斷其優劣，同時，將針對寵物保險之核保考量因素、理賠、法律面向進行分析。另外，本文亦同時針對外國目前寵物保險發展現況加以介紹，作為我國未來寵物保險之借鏡。最後，針對前述綜合判斷後，本文將提出個人建議，以期拋磚引玉，提供未來寵物保險改進之方向。