近年來國內資訊科技產業面臨了許多國際大廠的專利侵權訴訟及高額專利權利金追索情勢。為有效因應此發展趨勢，企業必須及早建立完整的專利經營策略與管理制度，刺激研發成果專利化，並積極累積有價值之專利籌碼，以厚實長期競爭力。而要研究專利策略，必先對專利制度的現況加以了解；而專利制度的現況，又往往具體反映在專利爭議之上。 在專利標準的爭奪戰中，誰的標準贏得最後勝利，多半便決定了未來誰能賺錢。雖然大家都希望盡早看到標準出現，但也希望自己選擇的技術能變成普遍的標準。如何決定標準是一件值得關注的事，因為標準對於經濟及社會的影響十分巨大。標準制定的過程必須公平公正，以避免有人藉著左右標準的制定而從中謀取私利。這其中也涉及了許多複雜的法律問題，Rambus控告英飛凌（Infineon）案即是一個明顯的例子。 因此本文擬以與產業標準化相關的專利爭議為研究範圍，借鏡美國產業標準化相關之專利爭議，於參與標準制定過程所面臨的法律問題架構之下，探討我國業者在面臨產業專利爭議與產業標準化問題時應如何因應。

公共健康與藥品專利之間的衝突與調和，一直是世界貿易組織（World Trade Organization，以下簡稱WTO）各會員國所關注的焦點；儘管全球經濟發展迅速，但多數低度開發及開發中國家，卻因為無法獲得足夠且平價的醫療資源及藥品，而有大量人口死於可治療之疾病，人類最基本的健康權在該些國家境內仍無法獲得基本的保護；故WTO 在2001、2003及2005年分別通過數個宣言及決議，試圖透過該些決議，來解決該些國家境內日益嚴重的公共健康問題，並試圖調和藥品專利保護與公共衛生間的衝突。然而，該些決議仍必須透過各國修正內國法律來加以實踐，故本文以加拿大和印度之內國法修正為例，分析後發現該些國家修正專利相關法規後所建立之學名藥品出口機制對於解決上述公衛問題之效果其實相當有限，再加上始終對強制授權機制持反對意見的美國，透過其於國際社會強大之影響力，進一步的阻礙了各國的實踐，故WTO允許透過強制授權出口平價學名藥品至不具製藥能力國家之機制，對於落後國家之實際影響，仍有待未來進一步的觀察。

隨著知識經濟的發展，專利成為企業的重要資產，專利訴訟更成為企業經營管理必修顯學。專利之高度技術內容及其商業化本質，使得專利訴訟成為技巧最複雜、成本最高昂、耗費時間也最冗長的救濟程序，終而引發各界對於專利訴訟制度之反思，開始強調應循公平、合理、迅速、經濟、專業之糾紛解決程序來排解專利糾紛。美國於1982年制訂專利法第294條開放專利有效性及專利侵權爭議得由當事人自願提付仲裁，聯合國國際貿易委員會於1985年制訂國際商務仲裁模範法（UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration），作為各會員國仲裁法制之參考藍本，世界智慧財產權組織（World Intellectual Property Organization，WIPO）亦於1994年成立「仲裁與調解中心」為智慧財產案件提供專業性及跨國性之糾紛解決服務。上開仲裁立法及機構設置均顯示專利仲裁制度之發展與成長。 專利是一種權利保護期間短暫、權利範圍不明確、保護客體高度技術化，且集結科技、法律、管理三大專業於一身之權利，其糾紛解決對於迅速性、專業性、經濟性、秘密性、靈活性、和諧性、跨國性及風險控制性之需求，正係仲裁程序所能提供之優點。惟專利權與仲裁程序仍有本質上之互斥，包括：專利權之獨佔性及其背後蘊含之龐大商機，吸引專利權人寧願循訴訟途徑奮戰到底；專利糾紛當事人之實力差距，使得雙方難以達成仲裁協議；專利糾紛對於調查證據之強烈需求，與仲裁程序強調之迅速、經濟致生衝突；專利判決的不確定性，以致專利案件約有50％的上訴成功率，此亦促使當事人欲循訴訟程序爭取由上訴審法官重新審視案件，而不願意循仲裁程序「一戰定江山」。 經本文就我國企業專利糾紛循仲裁程序解決進行分析，發現有下列幾點之限制：一、我國企業客觀實力不足，主觀心態復趨於保守，導致企業之糾紛程序選擇權受到一定的限制。二、仲裁程序以當事人合意為前提，雙方就現在之爭議欲達成仲裁協議，本即有一定之難度。三、我國仲裁法未開放專利有效性糾紛之仲裁容許性，權利有效性問題仍待行政法院認定，致生程序切割及審理時程延宕之不利益。四、我國仲裁制度因仲裁人之公正、獨立性有待加強、證據法則規範不夠完整且未能落實，導致程序正義不彰，當事人對仲裁制度信賴感普遍不足。五、我國仲裁法未明文賦予仲裁人核准保全程序之權限，當事人仍須向法院聲請假扣押、假處分裁定，不但緩不濟急，法官對於應否進行保全程序及核准為何種保全措施，其掌握度亦不如仲裁人。六、我國非紐約公約簽約國，以致於我國仲裁判斷面臨難以於外國獲得承認及執行之困境。上述幾點，都是我國企業專利糾紛欲循仲裁程序解決所面臨之限制因素。 有鑑於專利仲裁於我國企業之主要活躍領域，即美國與中國，已逐步成熟發展，本文謹建議我國企業面臨專利糾紛程序選擇時，應考量糾紛之目的及類型，以決定是否適用仲裁程序。若適用之，則需作好仲裁策略規劃，對於仲裁協議、仲裁地、仲裁機構、仲裁人、仲裁程序均應為適當之安排，以爭取最有利之仲裁判斷。 本文最末則自短程及長程觀點，對我國專利仲裁之發展提出建議。短程而言，我國企業就單純的法律解釋爭議、訟爭性不高或彼此間存有持續性合作關係之專利契約，宜約定仲裁條款；就專利侵權糾紛則得透過互相退讓之方式，約定就專利有效性爭議不為爭執，或同意被告之損害賠償上限，以換取適用仲裁之空間。長程而言，於仲裁立法面，我國應於仲裁法或專利法明文開放專利糾紛之仲裁容許性、增訂仲裁程序之調查證據規範、明文立法賦予仲裁庭核准保全程序之權限；於仲裁制度面，應提升仲裁人之公正性、獨立性及自律性、加強仲裁人之專業及制訂專業之專利仲裁規則；於企業策略面，建議企業應依專利糾紛之目的及類型為適當之程序選擇，如適用仲裁程序，則應妥善配置仲裁要素，規劃出最有利之仲裁程序。 / As the knowledge-based economy rapidly grows today, patent rights has become one of the most valuable assets of corporation. Patent litigation becomes the most important commercial method to generate massive revenue in nowadays. Patents usually involve complicated technology and commercial elements and patent litigation procedure is usually complicated, time consuming and mostly very expensive. Hence, new solutions, which are more fair, reasonable, rapid, economic and professional, are proposed to replace litigations. In the U.S., the Congress approved 35 U.S.C. 294 in 1982 to regulate rules allowing dispute parties may voluntary initiate binding arbitration procedure in regard with patent validity and infringement issues. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration enacted in 1985 offered as prototype of arbitration legislation for UN members. In 1994, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center was established to offer professional and cross-broader Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) options for the resolution of intellectual property disputes between private parties. All these reforms show the development and growth of patent arbitration. Patent are characterized with limitations on period of protection, scope of claim and advanced technology. It involves with the knowledge of law, technology and commerce. Thus it will be required to deal with patent dispute with efficiency, profession, confidentiality, economic, flexibility, multi-nation and risk control when one decides which dispute resolution method to adopt, and arbitration is exactly the ADR method that satisfies all the requirements. Nevertheless, the exclusivity and the great commercial interests inherent behind patent litigation attract patentees to enforce their patent rights through courts regime. The difference in financial strength and interest leads to a difficulty for different parties to achieve an agreement. Extensive discovery procedure is almost compulsory in patent infringement litigation so that information between parties can be fully disclosed through the process. On the other hand, information disclosure is limited in arbitration proceedings. Also the parties may appeal a patent case in court, and it has an approximately 50% win rate in such attempt. All these factors decrease the parties’ intention to settle their case by arbitration. Through the case study and analysis of the Taiwan companies on patent litigation and arbitration history, it is not difficult to discover the deficiency of Taiwan’s current arbitration regime. The shortage in resource and unwillingness to take arbitral procedure restricts Taiwan companies to exercise they right to select dispute resolution procedure. Mutual consensus is the key priority for arbitration, but this could be extremely difficult to achieve on given patent dispute. Patent validity cannot be determined through the arbitration under current Taiwan Arbitration Law and needs to be determined by court, which prolongs the arbitral proceedings. Moreover, the professional ability of Taiwan’s arbitration remains in doubt, in terms of lack of fairness, independence and evidence rules, led the untrustworthiness of our arbitration regime. The arbitral tribunal has no authority to order interim measures, such as provisional seizure and preliminary injunction and Taiwan is not a signature party of New York Convention are also the factors that weaken the value of arbitration procedure in Taiwan. In comparison with the system in Taiwan, China and the U.S. patent arbitration are more systematized and are still increasing in numbers in both China and the United States. This thesis shall point out the factors for parties to consider adopting arbitration as patent dispute resolution, and assist parties to plan arbitration strategies. Lastly, this thesis will give suggestions on Taiwan’s patent arbitration regime development in both short and long terms. In short term, the public should be more aware the benefits by adopting arbitration clause in contract, when argument and disagreement might exist merely on obvious legal definition or less argument presented or when collaboration still exist between parties. This will encourage parties to agree to solve their dispute through arbitration in advance. In long term, legislators should regulate more detailed rules on arbitration procedure, evidence rules, and judicial support. Arbitration institutions should increase the training, improve the quality of arbitrators and develop more conscientious procedure rules. Corporation should have the concepts to learn and understand more about arbitration, and takes arbitration into consideration as commerce strategy in advance.

現代科技發展突飛猛進，為保障科技的研發成果與促進產業發展，專利法制扮演舉足輕重的角色。專利舉發係由第三人就已存在之專利權請求撤銷之制度，在專利侵權訴訟中常常是被告有效的防禦手段。 專利舉發是由舉發人向專利專責機關提起，被舉發人(專利權人)可就舉發提出答辯，專利專責機關就舉發之審定為一行政處分，不服者自可循序訴願及行政訴訟。 專利侵權民事訴訟被告所提出之舉發，其行政爭訟未到最後確定前，專利權均處在不穩定狀態，侵權訴訟常常暫停審理。為了加速訴訟之進行，以實現專利權之利益，我國已於97年7月1日成立智慧財產法院，「智慧財產法院組織法」及「智慧財產案件審理法」均已實施，審理法第16條中開設了在民事訴訟中被告可就專利權無效進行抗辯之規定，未來有關專利舉發將產生更複雜之問題。 本研究參考日本相關理論與實務，以專利舉發為核心探討三大領域之實務課題：(1)包含訴願在內的專利舉發之行政程序，(2)民事訴訟審理專利無效抗辯之程序，(3)舉發審定之行政訴訟程序。 舉發之行政程序探討的子題有：第三人發動之專利舉發與依職權審查之關係、舉發之審查採當事人進行或職權審查、舉發審定之行政處分的性質、舉發與訴願簡併之可行性等。 有關民事訴訟審理專利無效抗辯之程序的子題有：專利無效宣告為司法機關或行政機關之權限分配論、民事訴訟程序審理專利無效之問題、專利專責機關在侵權訴訟的訴訟參加等。 舉發審定之行政訴訟程序，值得探討的有撤銷訴訟之本質論、撤銷訴訟的原告適格、課予義務訴訟之檢討、行政訴訟程序中新證據之提出問題等。 本文研究結果發現：(1)關於舉發之行政程序，專利舉發人可能為公眾或與利害關係人，公眾舉發時專利專責機關應以職權審理為宜，利害關係人舉發時應以當事人進行為宜；另外，參考先進國家經驗，舉發與訴願宜合併為一審，並建立準司法之審理模式。(2)關於民事法院之專利權無效審理，民事法院是否可審理專利權無效問題，應是一種立法形成自由，法律無明文規定下，以否定說為當，以免剝奪法律給予當事人之程序利益；如今審理法第16條已有明文規定，且舉發制度並未廢止，造成雙軌制，雖在審理法設計有訴訟參加，以解決雙軌造成判斷岐異問題，但恐難達到目的，宜參考美、日等國所運用之制度。(3)關於舉發之行政訴訟，實務上舉發之行政訴訟運用課予義務訴訟時，日本行政事件訴訟法所規定之訴訟要件及勝訴要件，值得參考運用；另外，雖審理法第33條規定在行政訴訟階段法院可就新證據自為判斷，實務上仍應謹慎運用以避免造成一審的空洞化而浪費司法訴訟資源。

近年來在美國有一種”新興產業”崛起，部份非專利權實施者NPE，專門尋找實際生產商品或提供服務的知名企業為對象，以提出專利侵權訴訟的方式，加上持有法院核發之禁制令，威脅被告以達到強迫授權或合解的目的，一般稱之為「Patent Trolls」。 按專利制度的二大政策目標，一為提供發明人發明的誘因，一為鼓勵發明人揭露其發明技術內容，而Patent Trolls投機性授權模式所造成的問題，是否會破壞專利法之立法目的，而降低企業投資創新研發的誘因，乃值得觀注且為有待解決的議題。 故本文之主要目的乃從美國與台灣之專利改革與實務判決，探討Patent Trolls之解決之道。 / Recently there is a “new industry” in the U.S., some NPEs brought patent infringement suits against famous enterprises, which manufacture product or supply service and threatened with injunction, commonly called “Patent Trolls”. Among the two policy objects of patent law, one is giving the inducement to invent, the other is encourage inventors to disclose their inventions. Whether the problems caused by the opportunistic licensing models of Patent Trolls would cause damage to the object of patent law and decrease the driving force to invent of the enterprises is an issue worth observing and solving. Consequently, the object of this thesis is to discuss the solution of the Patent Trolls issues in light of Patent Reform and cases in the U.S. and Taiwan.

由於網際網路全球化、數位化等特性使得智慧財產權的侵害問題日益嚴重，電子商務經營業者莫不尋求更有效的保護方式，而專利權便是最具排他性的一種保護方式。就在眾多網際網路商業模式如雨後春筍般出現之際，許多電子商務經營業者已經取得為數不少的網際網路相關專利，所謂的網際網路相關專利，在多數文獻上其意思為：「網際網路業務方法專利」（詳見第二章文獻探討—網際網路相關專利之定義），而網際網路相關專利與網際網路商業模式（定義詳見第二章文獻探討—網際網路商業模式之定義）之間是否存在某種關係呢？ 本研究透過對美國專利商標局所核發之網際網路相關專利進行個案分析，以瞭解兩者之關係，所得到的結論從政策面來說，美國政府在核發網際網路相關專利時，應當嚴格認定「該技術是否非顯而易見」。 從投資的角度來說，投資者已無法單從專利數量來評估一個網站/一家公司的投資潛力，「專利的市場價值重於數量，專利與網際網路商業模式的搭配更為重要」；而專利的市場價值可以由專利的需求面、專利的供給面與專利的動態市場價值來衡量；專利與網際網路商業模式的搭配是指「某一網際網路商業模式的專利組合（patent portfolio）」，由於不同的網際網路商業模式會使用到不同的專利技術（除了使用到相同的專利技術之外）而該專利是否為該網際網路商業模式不可獲缺的關鍵性技術，便決定了該專利在此網際網路商業模式的價值。（詳見第五章結論與建議）；電子商務經營業者如何結合專利、品牌（商標權）、著作權以及營業秘密形成一難以攻破的套裝式智財權保護組合，是排除競爭者以及說服投資者該網際網路商業模式獲利潛力的重要課題。 從電子商務經營管理的角度來說，由個案分析可以瞭解部分公司之專利組合（Patent portfolio）與網際網路商業模式的關係是：網際網路相關專利與公司的Path dependency（見結論）以及發展次網際網路商業模式的策略性意圖有關。 另外由專利類型來說，專利在電子商務經營業者之網際網路商業模式所扮演的角色--關鍵性專利是主要的攻擊武器，基礎性專利則是主要的防禦性盾牌（關鍵性專利與基礎性專利的定義見第四章第四節--個案分析之第三小節之專利類型）。 由本研究的探討可以瞭解專利在網際網路商業模式中與品牌（商標權）、著作權、營業秘密都是一種保護創新、R＆D投入、市場佔有率以及吸引投資與創造授權機會之工具，唯有可以獲利的網際網路商業模式搭配可以保護其創新之智慧財產權組合才會有永續經營的電子商務經營業者。

隨著科技及市場的演化，在現代經濟交易中，知識成為重要資產，就如同過去天然資源對於低技術、重勞動力市場一般重要。新知識、新技術催生了許多新產業，由其是那些與電腦、半導體、生化科技有關的範疇。 近十幾年來，資訊科技產業成為台灣經濟的重心，也造就了相當數量的科技新貴。究其原因，多數研究皆指出：優秀的技術勞動力、彈性的製造優勢、敏銳的市場回應、高效率的中衛體系、競爭性合作網路等是該產業擅其勝場之主因。但國內該產業也有為數不少的廠商，在市場競爭中遭到淘汰。究其原因，研發創新的加速使個別產品壽命縮短，致使廠商研發回收不易。同質性產品競爭激烈等市場因素皆是。也有某些研究報導指出：遭到外國專利侵害控訴、鉅額專利權利金追索，美國國內法反仿冒、反傾銷制裁等等措施，迫使廠商不堪負荷而退出。或因繳交過高的權利金，而喪失市場競爭力。據此，得以窺見：在現階段，作為產業重要「智識財產」之一的專利權，尚未成為我國資訊科技產業的競爭優勢，反倒成為被抨擊的弱點所在。是以，從長期的觀點來看，企業提昇專利權管理成為策略考量層次，對資訊科技產業維持競爭、生存優勢來看，有其必要。 以往企業總以為取得專利的目的，僅在保護自己公司的產品、技術和研發成果。但是，今日我們應建立一個新的觀念：從策略觀點，意即資源運用觀點；管理(有效利用)專利權以取得持續性的競爭優勢。也就是靈活運用專利權，以做為企業間技術競爭以及企業戰略的武器。這當然包括了增加企業收益的企圖。另一方面，處在技術競爭的戰場上，任何一家企業都無法遠離「專利權」的雷區與火力。消極地，避開競爭對手的專利佈局與攻擊，不得已時也得將被專利攻擊的損失減至最小；積極地，運用本身技術資源，蓄積專利量、提昇專利質、組構專利網以作為攻擊或赫阻競爭對手的武器，或作為交互授權、專利聯盟(Patent pooling/ consortion)的籌碼。 程序上，本研究採兩階段資料整合分析。第一階段，先蒐集該產業涵蓋上、中、下游之16家代表性廠商，自成立以來至1998年底為止的專利核准件數與內容；佐以我國智慧財產權局的總體統計、各上市公司年報，作初步比較分析。檢視其： 一、 專利數量與質量(基本專利或衛星專利)的比重。 二、 個別廠家在發明、新型、新式樣三類專利比重。 三、 專利內容與廠家核心事業的關連性。 四、 專利數量累積與營業成長的關係。 五、 綜合以上，窺探各別廠家的策略意圖。 第二階段，取四家代表性廠家做個案深入訪談以解釋命題，求證假設。 最後由研究歸納、抽象出：激勵策略、防禦策略、前瞻策略、攻擊策略等四種概念化之專利管理策略的假設模型，並嘗試做出策略建議。 第一章 緒論………………………………………………………4 第一節 研究背景………………………………………………….4 第二節 研究動機………………………………………………….6 第三節 研究問題………………………………………………….7 第四節 研究目的………………………………………………….8 第五節 研究程序………………………………………………….8 第六節 撰寫大綱………………………………………………….8 第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………………9 第一節 專利與專利制度…………………………………………9 第二節 專利法與專利權…………………………………………9 第三節 專利權之取得、運用與維護……………………………12 第四節 專利管理…………………………………………………15 第五節 專利管理策略……………………………………………24 第三章 研究方法…………………………………………………27 第一節 研究架構…………………………………………………28 第二節 研究限制…………………………………………………28 第三節 研究變項…………………………………………………29 第四節 名詞定義…………………………………………………29 第四章 個案分析…………………………………………………30 第一節 統計資料解析……………………………………………30 第二節 宏□電腦公司……………………………………………38 第三節 鴻海精密工業公司………………………………………57 第四節 世界先進積體電路公司…………………………………71 第五節 研華股份有限公司………………………………………81 第五章 結論與建議………………………………………………90 第一節 研究發現…………………………………………………90 第二節 結論………………………………………………………95 第三節 後續研究建議……………………………………………97 參考文獻 一、 中文部份……………………………………………………98 二、 外文部份……………………………………………………99 附錄 一、 宏□、鴻海、世界先進、研華訪談紀要…………………100 二、 宏□、鴻海、世界先進、研華國內智慧財產權局註冊專利摘要 三、 聯電、台積電、華碩、廣達、技嘉、英業達、力捷、神達等公司 之專利摘要 / Along with the evolution of technology and market, in modern transaction economy, intellectual works have become as important properties as natural resources did to the labor-intensive, non-technological market for the past. New knowledge and new technologies create some new industries, especially those that related to the domain of computing, semiconductor and biotech. Information technology industry has become the core of Taiwan economy for the past twenty years. Meanwhile, this industry has created certain amount of young millionaires to the Taiwan society as well. In search of its causes, some point out that good qualified technical labors, advantage of flexible manufacturing, prompt market responds, efficient logistics system, competitive co-operation network etc… are the answers to its prosperity. Nevertheless, not a few Taiwan information technology companies have been expelled from this market over competition. To answer this question, some researches point out that acceleration of R&D results to shorten product life circle making unlikely to return the investment. In addition, such marketing factor as severe homogeneous product competition occurred. There are also some reports said: the accusation from foreign technology leading countries such as USA, Japan or Europe, and the claim of huge amount of royalty payment, enforcement of copy right and anti-dumping by USA government. All these impacts struck out some Taiwan IT companies from this game. Furthermore, high royalty payment ate up its profit margin and made most of them lose price competitive advantage. Base on above studies, one can be aware that patent right as an important intellectual property has currently not been the competitive advantage of Taiwan IT industry yet. On the contrary, patent right used to be the Achilles' heel of Taiwan IT industry for the past. For Taiwan IT related companies' long run concern, to lift patent right management up to the strategic level seems essential to keep its own competitive advantage as well as long term survival. It supposed to be the purpose of being granted a patent right that protecting one's innovation of product or technology. While today, a positive concept should be given to the corporate patent rights. That is, in order to maintain corporate continuous competitive advantage, corporate should see the patents from strategic point of view. That is to say applying resource management viewpoint to manage corporate patents. Corporate should use patent rights so flexibly as to be a weapon of inter-corporate technological campaign. One intention is for sure that it can increase corporate income. For the negative concern, it avoids rivals' attacks and minimizes the loss from the patent war. For positive concern, corporate should manipulate its technical resources to accumulate patent volume, to promote patent quality, to build patent web so as to deter competitors from imitation or to be the stakes of cross-licensing and patent pooling. In processing this study, it takes two successive phases data integration. At the first phase, collected official information of patent applied and filed from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, which covering sixteen firms over IT industry from top end to users' end respectively. Together with Taiwan IPO's macro statistics and each company's annual report, this study preliminarily compared and analyzed following factors: 1. Quantity and quality (basic or satellite) of filed patents of respective company. 2. Portion of patent form: invention, new type or new pattern patent of each company. 3. Co-relation between patents content and core business of each company. 4. Relation of patent accumulation and its sales turnover of each company. 5. Base on above, speculating each company's strategic intention. At the second phase, these sixteen firms had been divided into three groups according firms' product subject to industrial or end-user purpose, this study chose four examples which are most representable and well-established firms as profound case study to interpret proposition and hypothesis. Finally, inducting four conceptual strategy models of patent management, they are Incentive, Defendable, Advanced, Aggressive strategies and this study try to propose the strategic choice.

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.

近年全球產業競爭日趨激烈，我國國內專利訴訟亦日漸增加。加上我國財務會計準則公報第37號「無形資產之會計處理準則」及第35號「資產減損之會計處理準則」生效後，企業需要每年對專利權資產進行減損測試，使得國內專利權評價更顯複雜，同時亦產生較多盈餘操縱空間，導致專利權資訊之不確定性增加，間接降低財務報表資訊品質。為了增加財務報表使用者對於報表資訊之信賴，企業需要藉由慎選查核會計師以達到賦予財務報表公信力的目的，本研究首先分析近十年財務報表揭露之專利權資訊概況，接著探討其金額重大性與企業選任會計師決策之關聯。 實證結果顯示企業專利權金額重大性越高，越傾向於委任專長會計師事務所（含大型事務所、產業專長與專利權科目專長會計師事務所）查核財務報表，且專利權金額重大性之顯著，主要來自於第35號公報生效後之效果。 / As world competitions within industry strengthen, patent-related law suits have also increased these days. After the adoption of TSFAS No. 37 and No. 35, Taiwanese companies need to test patent impairment every year, which makes asset valuation complicated and increases patent information uncertainty. While bringing more room for earnings management, it also reduces financial reporting quality. To enhance users’ confidence, management needs to choose auditors of higher credibility. This study first analyzes patent disclosure information of publicly listed Taiwanese companies for the latest 10 years, and examines how the materiality of patent assets influences companies’ choice of specialist auditors. We find that the more important the materiality of a company’s patent assets, the more likely it will choose to hire a specialized auditor, being a large firm, an industry specialist, or an account specialist auditor. The significant positive association between patent materiality and choices of specialized auditors is mainly effected by the adoption of TSFAS No. 35.

University of Macau / Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences