專利侵權訴訟成為近年最熱門的議題之一，各國公司皆主動或被動的參與其中。台灣廠商，尤其高科技產業，近年常被報導在專利訴訟中敗訴且損失大筆權利金；然而台灣廠商所擁有的專利數量龐大，和敗訴的情形呈現對比。 專利侵權訴訟失敗的原因諸多，包含智財策略、專利權管理、專利品質等因素。本研究針對專利品質這項因素，以國際專利訴訟勝方專利為標的，探討專利品質及特性，做為台灣廠商在申請專利時之參考。 本論文針對研究對象進行基本被引證數（forward citation）分析，以及使用品質檢驗表分別檢核美國廠商及台灣廠商美國專利之品質。所得結果顯示多數研究對象之專利被引證數確實高於該年度的平均被引證數。專利品質檢驗表檢核結果顯示研究對象確實可能獲得極高分，然台灣廠商之美國專利，也有可能得分不低。 整體研究結果顯示，專利品質被多種因素影響，被引證數只是其一，其餘包含專利技術本身、撰寫品質、前案檢索等，皆影響一篇專利的品質。台灣廠商若在專利撰寫初期即注意這些特徵，應可提升其專利品質，並在訴訟方面有較佳之表現。

法律面向之專利品質，係指專利申請案符合法定專利要件與否而定，因而專利審查品質幾可決定專利品質，故專利品質可由審查機關所審查之專利申請案符合法定專利要件的比例來衡量。然而由於審查人員所能獲取的先前技術資訊範圍與法定的先前技術資訊範圍存在相當的差異，因而客觀上無法確認足以影響專利申請案准駁之先前技術文件是否存在，也就無法精確評價專利品質之優劣，充其量只能在審查人員所能獲取的先前技術資訊範圍中確認其審查意見之適法性，而公眾審查制度相對於專利品質之意義在於提供第三人適當的管道來彌補專利審查上先前技術資料的侷限性，並可影響專利品質之評價指標。 比較各國之法定公眾審查制度，以及透過網際網路之新興公眾審查制度後，發現我國雖已導入專利早期公開制度，但卻未明定有專利核准前的公眾參與審查管道，而舉發制度雖具有矯正專利審查過程之功能，然此種事後的公眾審查方式無疑較為浪費行政及社會成本，考量到我國目前審查實務現況，建議應明訂專利核准前之公眾參與審查機制並針對專利核准後的舉發制度進行若干修正。

在過去，我們認為有形資產是公司最重要的資產，然而到了現今知識密集產業當道的時代，取而代之的是無形資產：專利，品牌，商業秘密等成為決定公司存亡與進步與否的關鍵，因此研究無形資產的價值成為主流之一。本研究第一部份使用因素分析法捕捉專利四大指標：前引證數、後引證數、專利家族數與請求項個數共同影響專利的因素，我們稱之為「專利品質」，並用此方法來建構台灣上市上櫃電子業公司於2003年至2012年各公司各年度的創新力指標。 本研究第二部分探討員工薪酬對於公司創新力的影響，並且以2008年員工分紅費用化政策作為一工具變數，試看該政策對於公司研發創新的影響。本研究結果顯示，分紅費用化政策對於公司研發創新並無顯著影響。整體來看，費用化後高、低股價公司間的薪酬差距縮小，然而創新研發能力差距卻擴大；若分產業來看，台灣電子業發展有往技術密集產業之高股價公司集中的現象，例如：半導體業、電腦及週邊設備業、通信網路業、其他電子業在費用化後研發產出增加最多，即使該產業亦為費用化後總薪酬下降最多之產業。

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.

創新無論在經濟成長或是企業競爭中，都扮演非常重要的角色，其中專利權又是保護創新的重要關鍵，但基於專利價值分佈呈離散且偏態的特性，企業在從事研發活動時，必須重視專利品質，以避免專利與技術貿易收支之矛盾情形。過去在專利品質的研究上，被引證次數是最有效的衡量指標，但目前作法卻僅考慮直接被引證次數，而忽略間接被引證次數，此作法造成三個問題：忽略了間接引證資料的攸關性、未考慮各個被引證次數的品質差異、未考慮引證專利的品質差異。因此，本研究以實證研究方法，探討間接被引證次數對企業價值的影響，進而評估間接引證資料於專利品質評估的應用。 本研究以在美積極從事專利活動的美國公開上市企業為樣本，期間為1980年至2002年，以二因子固定效果模型，觀察化學、電腦與通訊、電子與電機產業的創新活動對企業價值的影響。本研究有兩點重要發現：一、研發強度與專利產出效率與企業價值相關性低，甚至呈負向相關，而兼顧量與質的專利指標則與其呈現正向相關，表示研發必須值、量並重；二、間接被引證次數具有價值攸關性，且其影響力會逐層遞減，此結論不僅提供未來相關研究的重要基礎與新的研究方向，更表示在從事專利分析或專利指標設計時，需將間接引證資料納入考量。 / Innovation always plays an important role in both economic development and corporate competition, therefore patents that protect innovation are key. But because patent values are highly dispersed and skewed, corporations must focus on quality and not merely on quantity in R&D management to prevent a technology trade deficit while increasing the quantity of patents granted. Much literature has found that the number of citations received is a good proxy for patent quality. But most people only consider direct citations and ignore indirect citations in their research and practices. These people ignore three important facts: the value relevance of indirect citations, the weight difference of each citation count, and the quality dispersion of citing patents. As a result, this study utilizes empirical methods to discuss the influence of the number of indirect citations received on corporate market value and then assesses the relevance of indirect citation in patent indicators. The samples used in this study are 1,624 U.S. listed firms that have been active in applying for for patents in three areas: chemical, computer and communication, and electric and electronics between the years 1980 and 2002. This study uses two-way fixed effect model to evaluate the influence of innovation activities on corporate value. The first conclusion suggests that patent indicators based on quantity and quality has positive correlation with corporate value while R&D intensity and R&D efficiency based on patent quantity both have low correlation and sometimes even a negative correlation with corporate value. This implies that corporations must develop a R&D strategy that focus both on quantity and quality at the same time. The second conclusion confirms the value relevance of the number of indirect citations received and finds the progressively declining influence of ascending citation orders. This study not only offers an important basis and brings up new issues for future related research but also confirms that taking indirect citation data into consideration is necessary.

本研究旨在探討民國88年至94年台灣IC設計產業之研發效率分析。採兩階段資料包絡分析法(Data Envelopment Analysis, DEA):第一階段以保證區域資料包絡分析法(Assurance Region DEA，AR/DEA)衡量績效，以避免傳統DEA方法可能出現產出或投入的乘數為0之狀況。第二階段採資料切齊的(censored) TOBIT迴歸模型探討影響研發效率值的效率因子。 研究發現: (1)只考量專利數量與納入專利品質考量下之統計檢定結果，雖沒有顯著的差 異，但對少數的廠商的研發效率值與排名確實有變動，納入專利品質考 量，可以掌握更多研究發展資訊，了解廠商專利真正的價值。 (2)專利被引證次數與研發效率值呈現顯著正相關。 (3)TOBIT迴歸實證結果顯示: 研發效率與公司規模無顯著關係；研發效率與研發人力密集度無顯著相 關；研發效率與研究發展費用率呈負向關係；研發人員年約收入對研發技 術效率無顯著影響；外來知識流量占自有知識存量比例會正向影響研發效 率表現。 / This study investigates R&D efficiency analysis of IC design industry in Taiwan from 1999 to 2005 by using the two-stage Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). To avoid the situations that the multiplier of the input or output might be zero, we adapt the method of Assurance Region DEA (AR/DEA) to measure achievements in the first stage. We then use censored TOBIT regression model to study the factors that influence the efficiency value in the second stage. Through our study, we conclude that: (1) Although there is no significant difference in the results of statistical test whether we take patent quantity into account or not, both the value of R&D efficiency and ranking of a few firms do change. We can grasp more information of research and development and understand the true value of firm’s patent as we put patent quality into account. (2) The correlation coefficient between the amount of patent cited and the value of R&D efficiency is positive significantly. (3) The empirical results of TOBIT regression show that: a. There is no significant relationship between the R&D efficiency and the company’s scale. b. There is no significant relationship between the R&D efficiency and the density of R&D workers. c. There is a negative relationship between the R&D efficiency and the ratio of R&D expense. d. The yearly revenue of R&D workers does not significantly influence the R&D and technology efficiency. e. The ratio between the flow rate of external knowledge and the owned knowledge storage affects positively on R&D efficiency.