網路發展衝擊了現在的商標保護機制。有鑑於網路科技發展日新月異，智慧財產權的侵害態樣也不再單純，隨著科技發展逐漸改變，現有的法規已不足以應付現在的科技時代。現在許多人相比於一般逛商圈、電視購物的方式，越來越多人使用網購的方式購買商品，但是當賣家透過網路服務平台販售偽商品而侵害商標權人之商標權時，除了直接侵害商標的賣家，做為中間媒介的網路服務提供者是否亦應擔負責任？ 目前由於侵害者眾多、追查困難及訴訟經濟的考量，商標權人通常都會選擇中間的網路服務提供者作為訴追對象，雖然由於各國環境差異，導致在保護消費者與網路服務提供者的交易或是商標權人的利益上，有所不同：若是太過保護消費者及網路服務提供者，雖然能夠保護交易安全，但相對犧牲了商標權人的權利，但若是太過加重網路服務提供者的責任，又會破壞網路服務提供者的經營模式，因此，法院必須權衡兩方利益，發展對商標間接侵權一套相關的判斷機制。 台灣目前雖然對於商標權間接侵權的案例仍十分缺乏，但隨著目前消費者的消費型態來看，此種商標侵權態樣亦將隨之成長，而為了因應將來狀況，建立相關的法規範是急迫的事。目前台灣針對著作權及專利權雖然都有間接侵害的相關判決討論，但針對商標間接侵權卻仍未有相關法規規範，在5月商標法的修正案中，也未試圖加入相關討論。本文試圖分析國外商標間接侵權的發展，並參考台灣對於網路服務平台提供者的責任避風港限制，分析台灣環境該如何得移植國外商標間接侵權的相關標準，並建立一套我國的商標間接侵權的判斷機制。

資產證券化之架構中，為避免創始機構破產，波及資產證券化商品之投資人，對創始機構之破產隔離(Bankruptcy Remoteness)即十分重要。在美國法上，有三種情形，會使創始機構所讓與之金融資產，可能受到創始機構破產風險(bankruptcy risk)之影響。第一，創始機構與SPV有所關連，進而造成該金融資產與創始機構之資產實質合併(Substantive Consolidation)。第二，金融資產之移轉被認定屬於虛偽移轉(fraudulent conveyance)。第三，創始機構移轉於特殊目的個體之資產，未被認定為真實買賣(True Sale)，而僅為擔保（Secured Loan）。據此，為了達成破產隔離，金融資產之交易必須符合真實買賣，SPV之資產與負債不可與創始機構合併，金融資產之移轉非虛偽移轉。 就實質合併原則之具體操作上，有些美國法院採取三階段負擔移轉測試。在此測試下，主張實質合併者須證明兩要件：（1）數個體屬於實質上同一而應被合併。（2）為避免某些損害或實現某些利益，實質合併是必須的。前者美國法上提出七項考量因素：(1)在分離與辨認每一法律主體之個別資產與負債時，所生之困難度。(2)合併財務報表是否存在。(3) 位於同一處所之合併利益。(4)是否各法律主體之資產與商業功能已被混合。(5) 於數個公司主體間，其利益與所有權同一。(6)母公司與集團公司間就貸款存在相互保證。(7) 資產之移轉未遵守公司組織形式。後者則是法院需確保合併所生之利益足以抵銷合併所生之不利益。 若此兩要件可被證明，將推定債權人並非僅信賴數個體之一之信用。此時該舉證責任將移轉於目標債權人。目標債權人須證明：（1）其僅信賴數個應被合併之一之信用。（2）其將因實質合併而受損害。若目標債權人可以證明此兩項要件，則只有在實質合併之利益顯著大於損害時，破產法院才可發佈實質合併命令。 本條例限制創始機構與特殊目的個體間為關係企業。然而，架構式融資在本質上，即屬創始機構所發動主導之交易流程，於美國金融資產證券化之發展經驗，亦准許創始機構為特殊目的公司之母公司。據此，本條例之限制，有悖於交易常態，並增加不必要之交易成本與法令管制之風險，故應刪除本條例第54條第1項及第2項、第73條第4項，並引進實質合併原則。 就真實買賣判斷原則，美國法上主要以當事人之意圖、資產損失之歸屬、資產利益之歸屬、基礎資產相關服務責任之歸屬，作為判斷標準。就會計面向而言，一般公認會計原則，究竟如何區分融資擔保行為與買賣行為，實值得作為真實買賣之判斷，美國法院實務亦以相關交易之會計判斷，作為考量因素之一。我國財務會計準則第33號公報對於金融資產之除列，主要採取控制權之觀點，是否喪失控制權，必需同時考量移轉人及受讓人之情況等綜合判斷。法院於真實賣賣判斷中，在討論資產損失與利益之歸屬時，能將會計界有關除列之判斷帶入，判決理由將更為堅強。 為了防範金融資產之交易被認定為擔保交易，美國資產證券化產業，努力推動可取代法院判斷真實買賣原則之法案，並在德拉瓦州、俄亥俄州、德州、阿拉巴州等四個州成功推動針對資產證券化之資產移轉議題，制定安全港條款，即透過證券化文件之形式聲明，取代真實買賣原則之實質判斷。真實買賣原則與安全港條款，立場不同，然均有可供操作之判斷標準，我國應擇一引進，以利法院處理具體個案。 在我國法下，創始機構之資力發生問題時，創始機構之債權人，有兩大權利可為主張：第一，可主張金融資產出售行為與移轉行為，屬通謀虛偽意思表示而無效；第二，可主張撤銷權，即以金融資產出售行為與移轉行為，屬詐害債權之行為而撤銷之，並依民法第767條之規定，請求返還創始機構所移轉之金融資產。 因信託法第6條第1項及第2項之撤銷權，在金融資產證券化中有所適用。如此規定，造成創始機構之債權人，相較於一般交易之債權人，更容易主張撤銷權，而使金融資產證券化之廣大投資人反而面臨比一般交易人更大之投資風險。而特殊目的信託，既然為商事信託、集團信託，立法意旨上，應較一般民事信託，更著重於受益人之保護；且於特殊目的個體為公司型態時，本條例第83條第3項之規定，創始機構辦理資產移轉，並依資產證券化計畫取得讓與資產之對價者，推定為民法第244條第2項所定之有償行為，是創始機構之債權人原則上須符合雙重惡意要件，始可行使撤銷權。然創始機構之債權人，於特殊目的個體為信託時，卻無須符合雙重惡意要件。因特殊目的個體之型態不同，卻有不同之撤銷權要件，其區分之正當性令人存疑。是本條例第53條應修正為：「本條例第53條之規定，信託法第6條，於特殊目的信託，不適用之。」始與特殊目的個體之性質與金融資產證券化之立法目的相符。

在網路的世界裡，搜尋引擎對網路使用者的重要性逐漸升高，而藉由搜尋引擎之幫助，使用者可以在數位資訊爆炸的網路世界中，尋找到所需的資訊。惟此種便利之用途，亦造成著作權人之權利遭受侵權之疑慮，如搜尋引擎協助使用者找到未經合法授權之檔案而下載之；亦或搜尋引擎本身即複製該未經合法授權之內容而散布之等情形。各國對於搜尋引擎業者之侵權責任有相似規定，在如何之情況下搜尋引擎必須負擔侵權行為責任，而在何種情形下搜尋引擎業者可能可以免責，又在何種情形下搜尋引擎業者可能引用合理使用原則，本文亦嘗試提出各國之規定以供國內參考。 國內尚未有搜尋引擎業者之相關案例，故本文嘗試透過不同的國家中不同的搜尋引擎態樣進行案例分析，提出不同的搜尋引擎在不同之情狀之下，可能會造成的著作權爭議。如在圖像搜尋方面即提出美國的Perfect 10 v. Google案中縮小圖示之合理使用爭議，並同時提出多年前的Kelly v. Arriba案做為對照；中國大陸的七大唱片公司訴百度案在音樂搜尋當中是相當具有爭議的問題，本文亦提出其他相關的大陸案例做為對照；瑞典海盜灣的案件是P2P軟體變型後所產生之搜尋引擎，亦可以看出未來會有更多不同態樣的搜尋引擎出現；而新聞搜尋之問題，牽涉到重製權，近期Google與美聯社達成和解，本文亦為新聞搜尋此特殊的態樣為探討；而圖書搜尋方面則是以Google的圖書館計畫為基礎，並進一步探討合理使用的可能性。 本論文試圖提出美國、歐盟以及中國大陸的法規以及諸多案例，並探討在世界各地的搜尋引擎面對的著作權爭議問題，而這樣的問題會隨著科技的進步與發展有更多不同態樣的變化。我國目前尚未有相關的案例，故本文嘗試提出案例語法規的論述與探討，以期能予我國參考之。 / In the internet world, search engines become much more important to the users. By using the search engines, users can easily gather the useful data online. Although search engines bring so much convenience, but the copyright holders accuse the search engines of coypright infringement. For instance, the search engines sometimes help their users to download the copyrighted materials or themselves reproduce the copyrighted materials. The actions might bring them law suits.There are similar regulations of search engines in different countries. In some situation, search engines might defense themselves by claiming safe harbor regulation, and in others, they could claim the fair use doctrine. In the thesis, it states many cases from different countries to discuss the regulations. Due to the different functions of search engines, there are various cases. Kelly v. Arriba case and Perfect 10 v. Google case are about thumbnails search in the United States. Baidu v. EMI record case in China is about mp3 files search. Despite the traditional search engines, there are some relatively new and specific search engines, such as Private Bay. Private Bay is a search engine which focuses on searching bittorrent files for P2P downloading. In the future, there will be much more search engines with different functions. In the thesis, it also states the disputes of news search and book search.Google Book Project rised discussion worldwide. The thesis states the opinions of the ones who agree to apply the fair use doctrine on the project and the one who disagree to. In Taiwan, there have not been any copyright cases of search engines so far.The thesis states the copyright regulations in U.S., Europe and China, such as safe harbor, contributory infringement and fair use doctrine. By presenting the cases and regulations in other countries, the thesis also provide some inspirational ideas about the copyright disputes of search engine.

論文內容著重在以下三個重點: 試驗免責、延展性授權與延展性專利範圍、書面描述要件。首先是35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)之Safe Harbor 緣由、案例、Integra v. Merck 一案之過程與後續影響以及271(e)(1)的試驗免責與研究工具的關係, 最後提出建議應限縮試驗免責範圍, 以強制授權或是明定專利法中的試驗免責範圍緩和基礎研究專利範圍過大現象(第二、三章)。 研究工具專利開發者多所採用之延展性授權與延展性專利範圍無非是想多獲得利益, 而研究工具專利對於生物科技發展是相當重要的, 第四章先以四方角色(大藥廠、大學與非營利機構、小藥廠與政府單位)討論研究工具對於本身的利益考量, 並且因試驗免責範圍不明, 延展性授權契約已是普遍存在, 詳細地討論其存在的意義, 並且分析已探討延展性授權金/契約議題文章, 另外對於延展性專利保護範圍, 明確指出哪一些核准專利是延展性保護範圍, 雖然2001年的三方會議已經明確地限制此類專利的核准, 由於Rochester v. G.D. Searle一案, 法院認為Rochester 專利包含延展性保護範圍, 歸因於未揭露出清楚的書面描述要件, 於是進行第五章書面描述要件的討論。 進而較詳細地探討生物機轉的途徑特性、功能性敘述必要性以及書面描述上的困難, 然後進行相關案件探討, 提出自己對於專利文件之書面描述要件的看法, 希望能在生物類研究工具專利保護範圍與書面描述要件中取平衡, 適切地保護研究工具發明。最後並提出總結與建議。 / Over the last twenty years, the biotechnology industry has grown very rapidly, and increased our understanding of incurable diseases. Research tools are playing important role to form the core of the pharmaceutical research, development, and testing. Because this industry is so research tool intensive, numerous problems have arisen stemming from the competing interests of the many players in this field. From the legislative history, the Hatch-Waxman Act embodies the legislative compromise balancing the competing interests of the pioneer pharmaceutical and allied research-based products industries with those of the generic drug industry. And the section 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) statute provides a “safe harbor” from patent infringement based on activities that are reasonably related to obtaining FDA regulatory approval of drug products, but the plain language is fairly ambiguous. In Eli Lilly v. Medtronic, Supreme Court held the safe harbor extends to medical devices, despite the fact that § 271(e)(1) does not refer specifically to medical devices. Recently, for the case of Merck v. Integra, Federal Circuit announced that the term “solely” limits the safe harbor exemption from extending beyond uses of patented inventions that are reasonably related to those specified in § 271(e)(1). But Supreme Court rejected and held that § 271(e)(1) applies to uses of patented inventions that are reasonably related to the development and submission of any information to the FDA. The Court was silent on the potential applications and opened the questions of the safe harbor's application to patented research tools. These problems may be the reason that research tool providers attempt to request royalties such as reach-through royalties for covering the downstream compounds or products. They also try to file the patent application with the reach-through claim for claiming a future invention. However, the use of reach-through royalties is still controversial and causing a decrease in innovation. Patentees attempt to obtain reach-through claims for covering a future invention without actually describing in the written description. The Federal Circuit's holding in Rochester v. G.D. Searle that the Rochester's patents failed the written description requirement, and Rochester should curtail the use of reach-through claims. So far the USPTO has not been uniform in its application of written description requirement. We therefore propose a new test to determine whether, and under which circumstances, functional claiming may satisfy the written description requirement. One should not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification. The approach would provide sufficient incentive for pioneering inventions, preserve room for the future, and thus expect to promote progress and to advance the purposes of patent law.

企業因為經濟自由化、貿易國際化潮流之影響，逐漸成為資本集中與技術密集之經營型態。為求擴充生產規模、增加產品種類、分散投資風險、拓展國際市場等目的，因而成立新公司或兼併其他公司，或購買其他公司之股份，或母公司與子公司交叉持股，而形成關係企業之組織型態，已成為普遍趨勢。職是，關係企業之經濟發展與經營模式，已然占有重要之地位。 關係企業具有特殊屬性，舉凡管理組織、生產規劃、人事制度、市場行銷、財務風險、獲利能力、公共事務與社會歸屬，均有相當程度之影響力。我國公司法對於關係企業專章之規範，仍有不足之處，導致受一九九八年亞洲金融風暴影響所及，爆發若干關係企業之經營弊端，其中以股票流通市場之證券交易違法行為，最為嚴重。綜觀其原因，除肇始於東南亞金融危機及國際不景氣環境外，亦顯示關係企業在股票市場存有許多問題，諸如負責人欠缺誠信、掏空公司資產，造成企業發生危機，發生多起上市或上櫃公司之經營弊端，嚴重損害公司、股東權益與債權人利益，並衝擊社會投資人與整體經濟，值得探討研究。 本論文研究方向，以法制理論、比較法學及實證案例為基礎，論述關係企業證券交易之違法行為，以股票流通市場為中心，並闡述近年來若干重要之關係企業案例，分析法院裁判之論處法律邏輯。包括關係企業之市場操縱行為（違約交割、沖洗買賣、相對委託、連續交易炒作行為）、關係企業「護盤」之違法性、關係企業之內線交易行為，等重要項目。亦討論關係企業藉由無形資產之高估或低估而買賣有價證券之非常規交易行為，兼述國際會計準則公報之規範，佐以實際案例研究。此外，亦闡論關係企業財務預測制度與證券交易違法行為之牽連、證券投資人之保護。 本論文內容之參考文獻資料，包括學位論文（例如前輩先進之博碩士論文）、教授學者之著作書籍、著名期刊與國內外網站資訊。所參考資料則以我國與美國法制文獻為主，至於其他國家之部分，則略以要旨參酌。最後，再針對作者執業律師參與關係企業案例之辯護瞭解，提出若干防弊機制之建議，俾供各界參考。 / UNLAWFUL ACTS BY AFFILIATED ENTERPRISES RESPECTING SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WITH A FOCUS ON THE STOCK EXCHANGE MARKET Abstract Due to the impact of economic liberalization and trade internationalization, operations of enterprises have gradually become capital-intensive and technology-intensive. In order to increase production, expand product line, spread out investment risks, and develop international markets, enterprises have established new companies, merged with others, and purchased shares of other companies, or have engaged in cross-holding of shares between parent companies and subsidiaries. As a result, the formation of affiliated enterprises has become a popular trend. The economic development and business model of affiliated enterprises have likewise become important issues. Affiliated enterprises have their unique attributes; their management organization, production planning, personnel policy, marketing, financial risks, profitability, public affairs, and social affiliation have significant impact on enterprises. Due to inadequacies in the regulations on affiliated enterprises in Taiwan’s Company Law, several affiliated enterprises were exposed to have engaged in fraudulent business operations as a result of the 1998 Asian financial crisis. Among these, most serious were cases involving unlawful securities transactions in the stock market. An analysis of the factors leading to such anomaly shows that in addition to the Southeast Asian financial crisis and international economic slowdown, problems caused by of affiliated enterprises in the stock market, such as integrity and credibility issues on the part of the persons-in-charge and their swindling of company assets, resulted in corporate crises. Many incidents of business malpractices in public or OTC companies occurred, severely undermining the interests of companies, shareholders, and creditors, as well as those of the public investors and the overall economy. All these are worthy of further exploration and study. This paper uses legal theories, comparative jurisprudence, and empirical studies to discuss the unlawful activities in securities transactions by affiliated enterprises. This paper focuses on the stock market to explain the major cases involving affiliated enterprises in recent years and to analyze the legal grounds in the court’s decision on punishment. The cases covered include market manipulation by enterprises, default of securities delivery, wash sales, matched order, manipulation of series of transactions, the unlawfulness of stock market intervention by affiliated enterprises, and insider trading by affiliated enterprises. In addition, this paper discusses the transaction anomalies resulting from overvalue or undervalue of intangible assets by affiliated enterprises. Regulations on the International Accounting Standards gazette are explained and supplemented by actual case studies. In addition, this paper explores the inter-relation between financial forecast systems in affiliated enterprises, unlawful activities in securities transaction, and investor protection. Reference literature used in this paper includes academic dissertations, publications by professors and scholars, periodicals, and information from local and foreign Web sites. Reference materials are based primarily on literature on Taiwan and U.S. laws, supplemented by summary of information from other countries. Finally, recommendations of mechanisms to prevent malpractices are put forward, drawing on the author’s experience as defense lawyer for affiliated enterprises.