本研究探討損害賠償計算方法理論對請求金額與判賠金額間差距幅度之影響。本研究以請求金額與判賠金額的差距幅度作為應變數，以三大損害賠償計算方法作為解釋變數，並設定三大群組變數作為控制變數。本研究之樣本為智財法院所審理之專利侵權求償判決，樣本期間為2008年9月至2010年9月。 本研究所建立之回歸模型解釋該差距幅度的變異量達45.1%。實證結果顯示，我國專利侵權損害賠償訴訟之差距幅度，顯著地受到總利益說及總銷售額說之兩種損害賠償計算方法的影響，但受合理權利金說之影響並不顯著。該等實證結果指出，總利益說的採用對於縮短請求差距幅度的影響能力，優於總銷售額說，代表著專利權人於訴訟中應詳盡地提出損害賠償相關事證，以獲得較高的賠償救濟。 / This research explores the association of the patent-damage calculation theories with the Variance between the amount of damage claimed and that awarded. Specifically, it tests the relationship between the Variance and three explanatory variables, namely, patent-damage calculation theories based on the profit, sales, and reasonable royalty, along with control variables including the case specifics, patents-at-issue, and litigants information. Its sample includes 186 patent infringement cases decided in Taiwan Intellectual Property Court from 2008/9 to 2010/9. The empirical regression model explains 45.1% of the variation in the Variance. The results show significance associations of the Variance with the profit approach and the sales approach, but not with the reasonable royalty approach. Such findings point out that the profit approach is more successful at reducing the Variance, implying that the patentee should present more detailed evidence during litigation to get more awards.

本論文以最高法院涉專利侵權民事訴訟判決為分析對象，而進行類型化的研究。本論文發現此類判決可分為「法律解釋爭議」、「專利爭議中鑑定報告證據力的認定爭議」、「損害賠償請求權或其他請求權基礎之爭議」、以及「特殊問題」等四個類型。而根據此類型化方式，我們可以系統化看待最高法院的判決對專利法發展的影響和貢獻。 / In this thesis, several patent infringement decisions of the Highest Court were analyzed for grouping. The decisions were further grouped by the legal issues therein into four types, “question of law,” “evidence of patent infringement analysis,” “cause of action,” and “special issue.” Through the grouping, the effects and contributations of the Highest Court over the patent law can be systematically studied.

懲罰性賠償金為英美法傳統下之制度，其目的在於以超越實際損害數額之賠償金，制裁主觀惡性程度特別重大之侵權人，與一般用以填補損害之補償性賠償金有本質上之差異。昔日多適用於被害人尊嚴遭嚴重侵犯之案件，然隨現代經濟社會之發展，亦漸用於處罰公司法人、制裁經濟犯罪。 我國侵權行為法主要繼受德國之體系，以損害填補為原則，故僅於特定領域之立法中承認懲罰性賠償金制度。現行專利法採取懲罰性賠償金之立法例，而目前經濟部之修法草案則擬廢除。 本研究首先介紹美國法發展趨勢、實務重要案例與晚近之專利改革法案，歸納其趨勢為「嚴格限制故意侵權之構成、提高專利權人舉證責任、限縮懲罰性賠償金之適用範圍」；其次，以實證方式分析台灣智慧財產法院歷年相關之判決結果，認為實務運作有「大多數請求懲罰性賠償金之案例，連侵權責任都尚未構成，有請求浮濫、逼迫被告和解之嫌」、「法院認定侵權人故意，實質上往往僅論及侵權人『知悉系爭專利存在』即可，相較於現行法標準實過於寬鬆」；最後，綜合美國法發展趨勢、我國實務情形、懲罰性賠償金功能論與法律經濟分析觀點，認為我國尚不宜廢除專利侵權懲罰性賠償金制度，惟應將其限縮適用於「搭便車」與「專利有效性毋需再確認」之故意侵權情形，以降低社會研發成本、賦與從事研發者挑戰垃圾專利之機會，方切合專利法促進研發之本旨。 / Punitive damages, a traditional system under the common law, aims to sanction those infringers having substantially subjective malice by awarding enhanced damages beyond the actual damages. It is naturally different from compensatory damages. Punitive damages were originally used to dealing with serious violations of the victims’ dignity of the cases. With the development of economic society, this system was gradually used to punishing corporations and sanctioning economic crimes. Since Taiwanese tort laws are mainly inherited from German laws, which only permit plaintiffs claiming for compensatory damages. Punitive damages were only adopted in several specific kinds of tort laws, as in the patent law. However, the provision of punitive damages was revoked in the current patent reform act drafted by Ministry of Economic Affairs. This study starts out by introducing the trend of American law, the essential practical cases, and the recent patent reform acts. It concludes the trend to have the following three characteristics: 1. Strictly limit the constitution of willful infringement; 2. Increase patentee’s burden of proof; and 3. Restrict the scope of awarding punitive damages. The study then empirically analyzes the related judgments of Taiwan Intellectual Property Count over the years. It finds that in majority of the cases claiming punitive damages, most plaintiffs can even not to prove that defendants have infringed their patents, yet force defendants to settle. Also, the court in Taiwan usually award patentees punitive damages loosely only if they can prove that infringers had known the existence of the patent . This phenomenon makes the standard in practice not strict as the standard in law. Lastly, this study sums up the aspects from the development trend of American patent law, current practice in Taiwan, the theory of punitive damages function, and economic analysis of law, and finds that it would be inappropriate to revoke the provision of punitive damages in patent infringement cases. This study suggests that punitive damages should be awarded only in two types of willful infringement: 1. when the defendant is a “free rider, or 2. when the validity of the patent need not be challenged anymore. This way, it may lower the cost of research and development, give developers more chance to challenge junk patents, and finally reach the purpose of patent law – encourage innovation.

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。

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.

長期以來，在我國法學欠缺研究法院專利裁判實務之情形下，本文從我國審判實務運作之實證面，將八十九年起至九十九年止，近十一年以來的全國各地方法院之第一審專利訴訟裁判予以全面量化、分析，藉由專利判決或裁定的統計資料呈現出我國專利訴訟之實務現況，包含各法院專利案件分布情形、當事人是否為外國籍、專利權類型、案件平均審理終結日數、原告勝敗訴比率、撤回率、和解及調解比率、裁定停止訴訟比率、鑑定比率等影響當事人權益的重要數據，藉此瞭解及驗證專利訴訟之本質與特徵，並指出法院因應之道。 又我國智慧財產法院在國人期盼下於九十七年七月成立，智慧財產案件審理法及智慧財產法院組織法亦在同日生效施行，經比較智慧財產法院成立前後之審判實務現況，應已大幅改善過去專利審判無效率、訴訟程序不當延宕之缺失，並展現出該有之裁判品質，然亦曝露出某些問題值得探討，特別是法院判決不利於專利權人之問題。 最後，本文以專利案件數量最多、質量最重的台北地方法院所終結的專利侵權判決為研究對象，解構專利侵權訴訟案件之類型，從法院審理的角度將訴訟上爭點予以類型化，區分為「程序問題」、「可專利性與有效性」、「申請專利權範圍之解釋」、「專利侵害認定及鑑定」、「不當行使專利權及其他事由」五種主要類型，再從上開五種主要類型細分成不同之次要類型。透過專利侵權判決類型化之結果，將有利於參與者觀察及瞭解法院審理專利案件之一貫脈絡及重心所在，且有助於集中審理，預防突襲性裁判之發生，以及增進專利裁判之一致性與可預測性，進而提昇專利之價值。

近年來全球在生物科技上發展迅速，尤其是其中農業科技部分之基因改造作物的發展，更對於消費者、農民和農業發展造成不小衝擊。且就我國生技產業而言，由於國外生物科技產業之發展已遠遠超過我國現今之發展，為提高產業之競爭力，實有必要選擇具備競爭優勢的項目，將研發、生產、資金能力集中於這些項目上。而在生物科技之眾多領域中，我國在生物科技各產業中最具發展潛力的即為農業生物科技下之基改作物產業，因此就此方面之相關法規建構應加以重視。 基因改造作物之快速發展一方面雖帶給人類社會許多創新的福祉與商機，但也同時引發了許多不同型態的社會議題與科技風險。而在基因改造作物之所有相關爭議問題中，最重要的即集中在「相關智慧財產權之保護」與「安全之管理」兩者上，而這也是本論文主要之重心所在。對於農民來說，影響最深之為基改作物相關技術的智慧財產權化，相關重要案例如本論文第四章第二節中所探討之Monsanto Co. v. McFarling案與Schemeiser v. Monsanto案。對於消費者而言，由本論文第三章可知基因改造作物所帶來之利益與潛藏危機並存，因此在發展基因改造作物，享受其優點之同時，對於基因改造作物之管理則更突顯出其重要性。而對於基因改造作物之管理制度，各國採取不同之立場，尤其是美國與歐盟更可說是採取相對立之立場態度，而經由分析可知其採取不同立場係由於歐盟消費者對於基改作物產品之食用接受度較低、社會大眾著重生態環境保護之程度較高，以及基因改造作物在歐、美之個別不同農業生產環境下所擁有之優勢不同，而因此所帶來之經濟效益有所落差所致。因此透過對於歐、美制度之檢討，本論文在我國制度之制訂上，即針對我國消費者對於基改作物產品之食用接受度、我國社會大眾對於生態環境保護之關心程度，以及基因改造作物在我國農業生產環境下所擁有之優勢等因素加以探討。