知識經濟時代，智慧財產權已經成為公司經營的策略重點，不再只是著重於法律與科技等構面，觸角更擴張為經營管理、商業競爭、企業併購、財務規劃與驅策新事業的重要工具。新的專利侵權原告（The New Breed of Patent Infringement Plaintiffs）便趁此一熱潮悄然誕生，美國稱之為「Patent Troll」，其不為營運研發、純粹在全球購買專利，以創造利潤與策略佈局考量為主，挾著專利持有人的地位大張旗鼓尋找「交易」對象，以訴訟為手段作為談判的籌碼，到處發警告函以獲取權利金。「Patent Troll」不僅在法律制度上引發爭議，更提高企業在智財管理方面的困難度，其對專利體系上的影響是全面性的。 本文第一章主要說明本論文之研究動機，包含專利訴訟新趨勢、新的商業營運模式，以及順應而生的「Patent Troll」之情形，闡述其所造成與被授權人間議價能力失衡之現象，接著闡述其對交易關係的影響以及美國法上相應適用的法律原則之變化，最後針對台灣的現況做一說明並向企業提出策略上之建議。 第二章蒐集並整理國內外與「Patent Troll」相關問題的爭議及探討。首先針對智慧財產服務業(IP Service Corporation)及智財控股公司(IP Holding Company)等名詞作一基本介紹。次對「Patent Troll」之名詞、定義、由來及分類做一整理介紹，接著說明「Patent Troll」之特徵、功能及商業模式。最後則針對各方文獻對於專利管理流程以及企業營運策略等建議做一整理分析。 第三章針對「Patent Troll」此一名詞做全面性的介紹與探討。首先對「Patent Troll」的定義、名詞爭議、發展歷史及與類似名詞的區辨為一概括式的介紹，本文將「Patent Troll」定名為「專利地痞」，並認為分析特徵可歸納為下列七項，只有當七項特徵都符合時才是本文所指涉之專利地痞：（一）為專利權人的個人、獨立發明人或公司；（二）藉由購買專利（如MercExchange）或進行技術創新(如Lemelson)；（三）不製造生產產品；（四）非提供專利服務；（五）鎖定目標公司（Target Company）：該目標公司必須是獨立發明製造技術，真正使用該專利，欠缺專利授權，在商業上成功，並且出現且已投入不可回復的損害；（六）以訴訟與禁制令作為要脅；（七）以達和解授權以獲取權利金等創造利潤及策略布局。接著說明「Patent Troll」的分類，以掌握其可能存在的不同態樣，本文將專利地痞分類為「發明型」專利地痞」，以及「購買型」專利地痞。然後就其特徵、優勢及商業模式加以闡述，歸納出一些共通的特徵，本文認為專利地痞的商業模式可以分成下列幾個步驟，第一階段為累積專利期，第二階段為授權協商期，第三階段則為專利訴訟期。各階段之間有其前後順序，並且環環相扣，除了第一階段需投入成本外，另外兩個階段均以創造利益為最終目的。最後再就全球各主要國家關於「Patent Troll」的現況進行討論並提出結論，以此部分的撰寫與結論作為第四張及第五章關於法律面與管理面相關議題批評檢討的基礎。 第四章探討「Patent Troll」在美國法上涉及的相關法律爭議問題，期以此觀察緣起環境變遷的方式了解國內外法制環境的差異，並定位台灣在此一進程中所處之發展位置，以解析台灣關於「Patent Troll」此議題重視之必要與否以及應該採取的態度與方法。首先以美國法上針對「Patent Troll」此一議題在行政、立法和司法的變革為引，帶出此一議題影響層面的全面性。次專注於美國法上關於立法上「專利改革法案」對於解決「Patent Troll」問題所做的努力，如前已提及之專利先申請原則、專利侵權損害賠償計算基礎、惡意侵權損害賠償、專利核可後非經訴訟程序的異議制度（Post-Grant Opposition）和專利侵權訴訟管轄權等。接著以法院判決的變化演進，如前述主要提及之2006年eBay v. MercExchange一案中對於禁制令核發原則的確立、2007年KSR v. Teleflex一案中對於可專利性原則（Patentability）的解釋運用，2007年MedImmune,Inc. v. Genentech一案對於確認判決（Declaratory Judgment）行使範圍的解釋。2007年Microsoft v. AT&T 針對域外效力（Extraterritorial Impact）的確立，以及2007年In re Seagate一案對於惡意侵權(Willful Infringement)的認定等。最後針對個別修正法案或法院判決的變遷對專利地痞的影響做一說明。 第五章提出企業面對「Patent Troll」此一威脅時所能採取的因應策略。將以第三章所分析之專利地痞商業模式三步驟為本，針對專利地痞行使各該步驟時，企業可能採取的因應策略。第一階段的累積專利期，包含有專利資訊管理、專利購買與公司併購、延攬IP專業人才、保險分擔機制與提撥準備金、技術創新設計、專利交叉授權、專利策略聯盟、契約條款規劃和其他新型態的因應策略等；第二階段的授權協商期，包含有專利評估、和解授權，確認訴訟；第三階段的侵權訴訟期，則有專利訴訟程序、侵權認定程序、善用迴避設計、提出異議制度、提出專利再審查、慎選繫屬法院，以及採取團體訴訟以資因應等。期以一相關流程使企業得以瞭解其現階段落在何種情況時應採取何策略始得降低風險並妥善因應。 第六章為本論文之結論建議，結論部份，將前述第三章、第四章和第五章所提出之觀點作一概括性的總結。建議部分，即就我國產官學各界及現行法制面對「Patent Troll」問題可能適用之解決方式加以檢討並提出建議。 / In the knowledge-based economy era, intellectual property has become the focus of business management strategy. The concerns of intellectual property management extend from law and technology to management, market competitions, mergers and acquisitions, financial plans, and start-ups. The trends also bring forth a new breed of patent infringement plaintiffs, Patent Troll, who do not undertake R&D and purchase patents worldwide as their main profit and business strategy. Those patentees utilize litigation as measures to bargain with their “clients” to obtain loyalties. The issue of Patent Troll is influential in the Patent system. It rouses controversy in legal system and increase difficulty for industry in intellectual property management. Chapter I describes the main concern of this thesis, including new trends of patent litigation, new business model, and “Patent Troll.” The chapter will elaborate an imbalance of bargaining power between licensors and licensees cause by patent troll, the influences of patent troll to IP transactions, and the changes of legal principles under U.S. patent law and judicial decisions. The chapter will outline the current situation in Taiwan and propose some strategy to industries. Chapter II involves relating issues on "Patent Troll" in Taiwan and abroad. First, the chapter will introduce the definition of IP Service Corporation and IP Holding Company. Then the chapter will elaborates and discuss patent troll from the name, definition, classification, origin, features, functions and business models. At last, this chapter will analyze the patent managerial process and operating strategies for the industries. Chapter III focuses on a comprehensive introduction towards patent troll. First, the article elaborates the disputes on the definition, the term, the history and the differences between similar terms of patent troll. A Patent troll should meet all the following seven characteristics, (a) patent owner/independent inventor/company; (b) Compare purchase of rights (MercExchange for example) vs. invention (Lemelson for example); (c) Does not Make, Use, Sell, Offer to Sell, Or Import Patented Article/ Does not Use/Practice Patented Method; (d) no IP Service; (e) Target company (infringer): The target company must be an independent inventor of the technology, has real use of the patent, lacks of patent license, has successful business and devotes substantial investments; (f)Threat of litigation & Injunction; (g) Demand for licensing fee. Then the article describes the classification of patent troll in order to grasp the potential types of it. Patent troll in this chapter will be classified as "inventor" one and "purchaser" one. The business model of patent troll can be divided into three stages: (a) cumulative period ;(b) licensing and consolation period and (c) patent litigation period. The three stages are of time sequence and closely linked together. The “Patent Troll” needs to invest money only in the first stage and take profit creation as the ultimate goal in the other two stages. Finally, the chapter describes and discusses the developments and current status of patent troll in some major countries in the world. The observation and discussion will be served as the foundation for further discussion in the following chapters. Chapter IV focuses on the legal principle changes under U.S. patent system in three dimensions: administration, legislation and jurisdiction and illustrates the effects that occur to patent troll. The changes of administration focus on three parts: the limitation of continuation application, the limitation of divisional application and the limitation of claims. In legislation, the changes focus on “Patent Law Reform Act”, including the first-to-invent to first-to-file principle, the calculation basis of damages, enhanced damages, post grant review procedure, and venue and jurisdiction. The changes of jurisdiction focus on five verdicts and cases, eBay v. MercExchange, KSR v. Teleflex, MedImmune, Inc. V. Genentech, Microsoft v. AT & T, and In re Seagate. The chapter will elaborate the influences of those changes and decisions on the business model of patent troll. Chapter V proposes some possible solutions and strategies to industries when they are confronted with the threats of patent troll. This thesis takes the three stages of patent troll’s business model as a foundation and proposes the strategies for industries against patent troll during different stages. The strategies for first stage are IP information management, patent purchase, mergers and acquisitions of companies, IP professionals recruitment, insurance mechanism, technology R&D, patent cross-licensing, patent alliances, contract planning and other new types of strategies and so on. The strategies for the second stage include patent evaluation, authorization of reconciliation and declaratory judgment. The strategies in the third stage are patent litigation, infringement procedures, patent design around, patent re-examination, choose of venue and jurisdiction and group litigation. The thesis expect to enable industries to understand what stage they fall on and what strategies they can adopt, with the proposal of management procedure. Chapter VI will be the conclusions of this thesis and will include suggestions on the issue of patent troll to industries, government and academia.

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.