在機器學習與深度學習技術帶動第三次人工智慧熱潮，特別是與機器人、大數據、3D列印等結合，「人工智慧」成為各大科技企業重點發展技術，無論是透過成立研究小組或是併購的方式，在2016年即有40多家人工智慧技術公司被併購，同時這些技術也被應用在各式產品與服務中。此外不同產業中也陸續引進人工智慧，從事需要耗時費力的基礎工作，節省成本，也引發人類被取代的恐慌。世界各國除著力投資發展人工智慧之外，也重視人工智慧為社會及經濟產生的影響與現行法制的衝擊。 人工智慧技術也應用於創作與發明過程中，且在機器學習技術下，人類僅需輸入指示與限制，人工智慧完成內容創作所產出作品，與人類創作成果並無二致。或是像是神燈精靈一般，人類只要以人工智慧可理解的方式定義問題、要件分析、功能設計，人工智慧即能完成最重要的物理設計，解決人類之問題，其產出物可能是符合產業利用性、新穎性與進步性等專利要件。這些人工智慧創作與發明物是否符合我國現行著作權法與專利法之規定而受到保護，將是本文探討重點，本文將以文獻研究以及比較法的方式深入研究。 智慧財產權制度設立的主旨是為保護人類精神活動成果，以人類為創作主體為前提，人工智慧參與創作之成果對於現行制度而言自然有所扞格。然而人工智慧創作力對於未來創作與發明而言，都是有所助益，可豐富文化的多樣性並加快技術的發展。而日本知識產權戰略本部也於2016年四月時也將針對人工智慧創作物之法律保護，擬修訂智慧財產權法。如我國未來亦研擬將人工智慧創作物納入法律保護，本文參考日本立法相關討論以及美國學者之見解，提出立法時應考量的權利歸屬以及衍生的相關問題。 / Machine Learning and Deep Learning are leading the new artificial intelligence era, especially when integrated with technologies of robot, big data, and 3D printing. As A.I. gradually became the one of the most popular technologies, corporate giants, such as Google, IBM, Facebook, and Apple, have been setting up research labs and acquiring A.I. startups to improve the quality of their services and products. Meanwhile, through using their service and products, our daily life is filled with A.I. Moreover, in many different industries, companies are using A.I. to reduce their cost by replacing labors from time-consuming jobs. Governments not only invest in the development of A.I. technology, but also response to the impact A.I. brings to the society, economic and Law. Artificial creativity is a new way for creation and invention. With machine learning, human only need to input the indication and limitation for A.I. to generate the outcome which is almost the same as what human can do. A.I. is also being described as a “genie in the machine”. Human input the description of their problems, functional analysis, and functional design, then A.I. will do the physical design to solve the problems and generate inventions which are useful, novelty and un-obviousness. Whether these creations and inventions are copyrightable and patentable is the core of this essay. Intellectual property system is aimed to protect the result from human’s mind activity, so the author or inventor must be human beings. When A.I. is not just a creation tool, but a creative subject, that’s where a conflict occurs. However, A.I. creativity is beneficial to human creative and inventing activity, because it can quicken the progress of technologies and improve culture diversity. Legislators in Japan are planning to protect A.I. creation through modification of intellectual property law. If we also expect to protect A.I. creation and invention in Taiwan in the future, with Japan legislative discussion and America scholars’ theories, this essay might offer some useful indications on the right attribution and other derivation problems.

無形資產中的智慧財產權與其他財產一樣，都是使競爭性的市場經濟得以發揮機能的必要條件，因為使用智慧財產權而賺得的利潤，對發明人而言是其創新的報酬，而對於向別人購買權利的人而言，亦必須因此而付出相當代價。這利潤無形中激勵了原來從事研究發展的那一方，如此一來，創新者賺取較多利潤並能長期保持競爭優勢，會更鼓勵更多的人願意投入創新發明。 本研究企圖將智慧財產權視為一項企業資源，將其視為可以商品化交易的商品，而研究其中研發所投入的成本、所投入的代價，如何在市場的交易買賣中，獲得回饋與報酬，或是形成企業的核心資源，在對價格的認知提供企業思考的方向。 本研究另一主要目的在於探討智慧財產權中專利權，其主張專利範圍權限的核心--「申請專利範圍」(claim)，述說其滿足要件、撰寫原則、侵權理論，將專利權中的申請專利範圍做全方位的分析，並說明在侵權損害認定上的優劣，提供企業在申請專利時應妥善思考的方向。 而在「專利計價模式」方面，除了整合世界各國的專利計價模式，並對專利計價模式與公司智慧財產權策略之關係，作更明確的剖析。 最後則以國內 DVD 光碟機產業為例，訪談國內企業在面對專利的評價時應有的認知與應採取的策略，並且訪問國內智慧財產保護頗有成就的公司輿相關領域專家，企圖對於企業在專利授權或是專利策略評估時，提供更明確的價格觀念，以免除其誤蹈專利地雷的窘境。 智慧財產權中，有關專利權在實務上，通常較為人注意的是法律層次的問題，而在專利權價值方面，一般文獻均歸類於會計層次，甚少將法律與評價問題作歸納整合。本研究企圖將兩者作更緊密的連結，並且歸納出有關的策略議題，期能對國內廠商在面對國外廠商索求專利權與公司內部專利權的價值評估時，有一較清楚的方向。 / Patent Pricing for DVD Technology In the business of high technology manufacturing and marketing, intellectual property is a company's lifeblood. As with any other assets, intellectual property assets must be carefully managed. When it come to manage intellectual property assets, your company's main challenge will lie in skillfully navigating a minefield of existing or pending patents, both to produce goods that do'nt infringe on other companies' right and to vouchsafe rights that will secure your marketshare. Concern for those issues is especially important when your company seeks financing. Inventors need assurance that their investment will not be endangered by infringement litigation or by poorly framed intellectual property right that do not adequately stake out a share of the company's markets Intellectual property right (IPR) encourages the R&D, and protect their IPR by litigation. In another way, the exhibition of IPR will light a way for another companies to avoid infrigement and can take more research in new product or process. The research attempt to view IPR - especially patent, as industrial resources, and make it exchangeable just like merchandise. When patent is exchanged in industrial market, how to evaluate its price? How to determine the price? According to industry norm or R&D expense? Whether to sell it or keep it in company as core competence? The research will focus on another topic -- the patent "Claim", will estate the condition of patent, the principles of patent, the infringement theory. And research will identify this topic and give a clear way for company when considering IPR. Thesis also integrates all the patent pricing models and list the relationship between pricing theory and IPR strategies. It will use the tomorrow star industry - DVD (Digital Versatile Disc) industry as a example, because it is the way for Taiwan to approach the high technology and DVD will knock the heaven's door for next century. The paper outlines all the founded documents and visit the field expert and list all the patents for various technologies, take reaserch about the determination of price and give a clear direction for Taiwan DVD industry.

在知識經濟時代下，無形資產的對於公司的重要性愈來愈高。有別於在工業時代下的生產重心，著重在大量的土地，機器設備...等有形的資產，在二十一世紀競爭中致勝的關鍵因素卻是那些無實體存在的知識累積，例如：研究發展的能力、員工的素質、顧客關係的維持…等;然而，會計處理對於無形資產卻是停留在歷史的取得成本，而不是現時的市場價值，更甚，有些無形資產根本無法入帳;因此，資本市場如何看待與反應公司的無形資產就是一項有趣的議題。本研究之研究目的是：依據Fama and French (1993)三因子模型，以橫斷面的分析方式，欲控制了系統風險、規模效果和淨值與市價比效果後，進一步分別探討研究發展活動與專利權對於股票報酬之影響，是否擁有投入愈多的研發活動與專利可以在股票市場獲得愈高的報酬？是否研究發展費用與專利權數對於股票報酬有遞延效果的影響？ 樣本期間從民國七十一年到民國九十三年，包含上市與上櫃公司，總共有21717筆觀察值，在研究發展活動方面，本研究採用了當期研究發展費用與依五年資本化後之研究發展費用二種替代變數，專利權方面，採用專利權數與累積專利權數二種代理變數，其實證結果發現： (1)當期研究發展費用溢酬與股票超額報酬呈現顯著的正向相關，將研究發展費用依五年資本化後，資本化後之研究發展費用溢酬仍與股票超額報酬呈現顯著的正向相關。 (2)專利權數之溢酬與股票超額報酬卻是顯著的負相關，累積專利權數之溢酬與股票超額報酬也是呈現顯著的負向關係，可能的原因是：在本研究樣本裡的大部分的專利權數量是非常集中在少部分的公司。 (3)研究發展溢酬對於超額報酬最多有三年的遞延效果，專利權溢酬對於超額報酬至少有五年遞延的效果。 (4)當期研究發展費用溢酬與資本化後之研究發展費用溢酬對於超額報酬有顯著不同的影響，二者比較下，當期研究發展費用溢酬對於股票報酬的影響程度大於資本化後之研究發展費用溢酬。可能的原因是:Fama and French三因子模型某種程度上代表著流量的概念，因此，當期研究發展費用溢酬的效果較為顯著。 (5)在專利權數之溢酬與累積專利權數之溢酬二者之間，對於超額報酬不具有顯著差異性的影響。可能的原因是:大部分的樣本都沒有專利權，因此，專利權數之溢酬與累積專利權數之溢酬沒有太大的差異。 (6)以研究發展與專利來說，二者對於超額報酬具有顯著不同差異的影響。 / Since the change in the global economy in the last decade, from manufacturing and industry-based to knowledge-based, it has created new interest in intellectual capital and increased the demand for measuring and reporting the effect on business and profitability. Nonetheless, accounting conventions based on historical cost often understate their value. Thus, from a practical point of view, how the stock market responses to the innovative activity is an interesting issue. Here, the major objective of this study is, on the basis of the three-factor model in Fama and French (1993), to investigate the relationship between innovation activities in firms and stock returns. That is, the aim in this study is to examine whether the intellectual capital, in particularly focusing on R&D and patents, has impact on stock returns. Does the market provide the premium for the value of the innovation in firms? Do the stocks with more innovation efforts worth the higher market rate of returns? Do R&D and patents have time lag effect on returns? We find that: (1) The return premiums are significantly greater for high-level of R&D than for low-level R&D. The mimicking returns both for the R&D-expense factor and capitalized-R&D factors are significantly positive related to excess stock returns. (2) Contrary to our intuition and expectation, the mimicking returns both for patent count and cumulated patent count are significantly negative associated with excess stock returns. One possible explanation is that the distribution of patented innovation is known to be extremely skewed, implying that a few patents are very valuable and many are worth almost nothing. (3) R&D-related return premiums have 3-year lag effect on excess stock returns at most. As for patent-related return premiums, it shows 5-year lag at least for excess stock returns. (4) R&D expenses have more impact on stock returns than the R&D capitalization. One possible explanation is that the “flow” concept is more suitable than the “stock” concept in the Fama and French (1993) regression of stock returns. (5) There is no difference between patent count and cumulated patent count in explaining stock returns. It is likely that, for a large proportion of the sample, they do not possess any patents. (6) When it comes to compare R&D to patents, we find that there is statistically significant difference between the two in explaining excess stock returns.

在歐美國家的強大貿易談判壓力下，我國立法院於民國九十四年一月二十一日完成藥事法第四十條之二的立法，同年二月五日由總統公布實施，進入實施資料專屬權制度的時期。 資料專屬權乃以處方藥品試驗資料為保護對象，由美國首先立法，利用貿易談判、國際協定向外推動的法律制度；美國對於新成分新藥及非新成分新藥、補充申請之試驗資料，分別賦予五年及三年的保護，於此資料專屬權期間內，其他藥廠不得使用或援引試驗資料權利人的試驗資料提出新藥上市申請。本文參酌美國最高法院於EPA v. Monsanto案例之見解，認為資料專屬權制度之法理基礎，乃係對於試驗資料權利人營業秘密之保護，以防止來自其他藥廠之不公平競爭；這項制度之經濟上意義，則在於藉由賦予藥品試驗資料權利人一段資料專屬權期間，要求學名藥廠必須進行其考量本身資力及市場後，不可能自己實施的藥品安全性及有效性試驗，使因而間接獲得市場獨占利益的試驗資料權利人，得到足以回收其藥品試驗資料投資之機會。 TRIPS第三十九條第三項規範保護藥品試驗資料的國際最低標準，它的保護標的限於藥廠為了取得於申請國第一次提出之「新化學成分」藥品之上市許可，所提出其花費相當時間、金錢始取得，而未經揭露之必要試驗或其他資料。會員國對於符合此項條件之資料，負有避免其被不公平商業使用之義務。本文認為所謂「不公平商業使用」，係指未提供藥品試驗資料權利人回收其對於試驗資料所為投資之機會，所為客觀上足以使得他人自其試驗資料獲得商業上利益的一切使用或應用試驗資料的行為；所以如果政府機關於「參考」藥品試驗資料權利人所提出藥品試驗資料時，未提供任何使其得以回收對於試驗資料所為投資之機會，即應認為政府機關此等參考行為，屬於「不公平的商業使用」行為。因此，資料專屬權制度可謂符合TRIPS第三十九條第三項所規範保護藥品試驗資料之標準；但如果會員國能夠建立另外一套賦予藥品試驗資料權利人回收其對於藥品試驗資料所為投資機會之制度，同樣也可以符合TRIPS第三十九條第三項的最低保護標準，並不一定必須採取資料專屬權之保護模式。 我國新修正藥事法第四十條之二採行資料專屬權制度，相關條文規定多有闕漏，本文認為新修正藥事法第四十條之二第一項之保護客體，應以「新成分新藥」之查驗登記申請人本身享有權利，為通過查驗登記所提出，且支付相當成本所取得之尚未公開營業秘密資料為限。第四十條之二第二項、第三項之保護方式，則係規定學名藥品於原廠藥品上市後滿三年，始得引據其查驗登記申請資料提出查驗登記申請，且滿五年之後，始能取得藥品許可證。至於第四十條之二第四項有關外國上市新藥的准用規定，可謂缺乏法理依據及執行可能，且實際上也不會發生任何效用的條文，建議應予刪除。 藥品試驗資料屬於原廠所有無形資產，提供適當保護以維公平競爭，有其正當性，但無論自藥品試驗資料之公益屬性、重複試驗的人道問題、重複試驗與獨占市場缺乏經濟效益等觀點來看，資料專屬權制度都有相當的負面影響，所以一套可以提供藥品試驗資料權利人回收其對於藥品試驗資料所為投資，且可以避免重複試驗或市場壟斷之「補償」制度，應有必要。 依據哈佛大學Aaron教授對於學名藥廠應分擔原廠藥品試驗資料投資之補償金，所提出的可重新調整補償金模式，每個學名藥廠都可以依據當時在市場上的學名藥廠總數，平均分擔其當年度應支付原廠的補償金比例，每個適用這套計算補償金架構的國家，都可以依據其國家學名藥產業及藥品市場的發展狀況，設定適當之參數，本文以為，乃足以替代資料專屬權制度之最佳選擇。 至於應該如何計算藥品試驗資料之成本，本文則提出下列公式： ( S ) C = --------------------------------- x ( N ) + H S +S1+S2+˙˙˙ C：學名藥廠應分擔原廠試驗資料成本之範圍。 N：原廠於第一個申請上市國家所花費的試驗資料成本。 H：原廠於學名藥申請上市國家所花費的試驗資料成本。 S：學名藥申請上市國家的國民生產毛額(GDP)。 S1+S2+˙˙˙：由主管機關所核定包括第一個申請上市國家的世界主要藥品市場國的GDP總和。 亦即本文認為，發生在學名藥申請上市國家的藥品試驗資料成本，應該全額列入學名藥廠應分擔成本的範圍；發生於第一個申請新藥上市國家的藥品試驗資料成本，則應該由每個學名藥申請上市國家的學名藥廠，依據該國GDP(表彰藥品支出費用)占世界主要藥品市場(包括第一個上市國家)各國GDP總和的比例，分攤其應負擔之部分。 因此，本文認為，以本文建議之計算公式核算各國應分擔之藥品試驗資料成本，並以「可重新調整補償金模式」之公式計算各學名藥廠每年應支付之補償金，應係較佳之保護藥品試驗資料模式。

專利權具有獨占性，對一國產業發展具有重要影響，為了平衡該權利，各國專利法在給予發明人專利權的同時也加諸某些限制，以我國為例，於專利法第五十七條第一項列舉專利權效力所不及之情形有：(一)為研究、教學或試驗，實施其發明，而無營利行為者。此即所謂之「實驗例外」 (experimental use exception)條款。 實驗例外條款在各國司法實務運作上，最常被引起爭論者向來集中在處方藥市場中專利藥廠與學名藥廠間之競爭議題。因為學名藥廠為了能夠盡早進入市場，不免須在專利期間屆滿前實施原廠專利進行必要之研究、試驗，以符合各國對於藥物上市管理法令之要求。 雖然我國專利法與其他國家一樣也有試驗例外條款，但其中要件嚴格限定為「非營利行為」，從比較法之方式分析，該規定係受美國普通法之影響。美國普通法關於試驗例外係採取嚴格路線，必須行為人之試驗係出於非營利目的，單純追求真相、探求知識理論，或為滿足好奇心，才可主張普通法上之實驗例外，即始係不具營利色彩之公家機關、學術單位從事之試驗，只要背後具有實質的商業目的亦不得主張試驗例外。如此造成要成功適用試驗例外是愈來愈不可能。 國際間對於試驗例外之立法，除美國外，尚存在許多形式值得我國借鏡，以歐洲共同體專利規則草案(Proposal for a Council Regulation on a Community Patent)為例，其區分「私人且非商業性目的之行為」，以及「為試驗目的之行為」，後者要求必須係針對系爭專利技術本身所進行之試驗始非專利權效力所及，若係將該專利技術作為研究工具之用，仍非法之所許。這種區分方法不僅層次分明、無觀念上混淆之虞，判斷上也較具有可預測性。 美國於1984年通過Hatch-Waxman 法案鼓勵學名藥之發展，對於為滿足主管機關關於醫藥品上市要求之試驗，在專利法271(e)(1)明文規定排除在專利權效力之外，即所謂之「Bolar例外」。我國於九十四年二月五日亦增訂藥事法第四十條之二第五項：「新藥專利權不及於藥商申請查驗登記前所進行之研究、教學或試驗」關於Bolar例外之規定。惟或因立法匆促，致法條要件不符合實際狀況，例如限定「申請查驗登記前」之行為，實際上藥廠於提出查驗登記之申請後，往往在主管機關之要求下須進行其他試驗，這些行為均在立法者原欲保護之範圍內，僅因立法用語之不當，造成實務運用之困擾。 筆者最後從法律及商業管理觀點著眼，對國內立法提出下列修法建議，作為本研究之最終成果： 壹、對於專利法第五十七條第一項第一款修法之建議 一、刪除「教學」之行為態樣 二、刪除「而無營利行為」之要件 三、增列關於研究工具之專利則無本條之適用 四、放寬適用範圍為符合主管機關法規要求而實施他人專利亦有實驗例外之適用。 贰、對於藥事法修法之建議 一、刪除「申請查驗登記前」之要件，改以行為目的來限定範圍，即「為通過藥品查驗登記所進行之研究或試驗」，始有本款之適用。 二、明定「物品專利」及「方法專利」均有本條之適用

在二十一世紀中，節能已成為一個重要的議題，而在眾多的節能產品之中發光二極體的發展更是為全世界所注意。本研究有鑑於台灣於發光二極體產業之產值目前已經居於全球第二名，僅次於第一名的日本，嚐試進一步分析台灣於LED產業的技術面以及管理面有何優缺點，並試圖給予進一步的建議。本研究依據發光二極體的產業鏈位置、公司成立時間以及規模等因素挑選了四間具有代表性的公司進行個案公司的相關專利佈局分析以及探討。在本研究最後的研究結論分別針對市場面、技術面以及智慧財產經營管理面做出結論，研究中發現多數廠商有事業策略落後專利佈局以及佈局範圍不夠廣泛的問題。而相對於以上所提及之研究結論，本研究也進一步做出建議：在公司的研究發展方面應做到智慧財產的同步化、將智慧財產的概念體現於公司的組織定位中以及加強研發人員的教育訓練；在技術方面，台灣廠商應積極加入制定相關標準的組織，並在接受國外廠商授權時更要積極的同步建立自主技術及專利以提升技術層次，強化自身競爭力；在策略運用方面，台灣廠商應避免將智慧財產窄化成法律的議題、善用策略聯盟跳脫傳統代工的思維、積極的部屬而非消極的跟隨、以合作的思維替代競爭的思維以及注意分散風險的概念。 / The Light Emitting Diode (LED) has become the center of attentions from industries worldwide due to its performance in energy conservation. The value share of Taiwan’s LED industry has achieved a supreme degree only second to that of Japan. This thesis aims to analyze the merits and shortages of technical and management field of LED industries in Taiwan and to provide further suggestions. The research selects four representative companies as case studies of their patent strategies, The selection criteria includes the company’s position in the industrial chain, the age and the business scale. The thesis ascertains a fact that most industries’ patent strategy is usually restricted and falls behind their business plan. This thesis suggests the synchronization and realization of intellectual property in the R&D through organization assemble and personnel training. Taiwan industries should expand the content of IP management other than legal issues, well utilize strategic alliance, transcend old-fashioned OEM management thinking, adopt the role of an active agent instead of a passive follower, collaboration instead of competition, and pay attention to diversification.

台灣科技業代工廠常面臨購買合法來源零組件，仍無法擺脫專利侵權控訴之命運，亦或常居於談判地位劣勢之被授權方角色，只能接受授權方完全排除自身擔保責任之契約條款，導致國內廠商始終擺脫不了高額權利金及侵權損害賠償金之累。本論文之核心研究問題，即在於探討如何在專利授權之架構下，降低未來潛在之第三人侵權責任風險？並區分法律制度層面、契約設計層面、管理制度層面，三個面向進行探討，嘗試提出可行之風險管控策略。個案研究方面，選擇美國最高法院Quanta v. LG專利侵權訴訟案，此案受各界宣稱為近期美國司法界對於專利制度最具指標性之判決，本論文透過判決評析探求美國法院見解真意，並在此架構下，提出個人意見及看法，進而對於專利權人未來之策略轉變，以及台灣代工業者應之因應方式提出建議。 1、法律制度面管控： 被控侵權者可運用專利制度下賦予專利權本質上限制之「專利權耗盡原則」，衡平原則發展下之「默示授權原則」，以及「再授權理論」對於專利權人之權利主張限制，以達降低侵權責任成立之風險。美國法下針對專利權耗盡原則及默示授權原則發展出多種態樣，惟其是否於個案中有所適用空間，往往仍取決於授權契約條款之解釋，此即彰顯出事先明確定義授權條款之重要性。 2、契約設計面管控： 由於我國法與美國法下對於專利授權契約定性上之差異，進而推衍出我國法下相較於美國法較加重授權人責任之結果，是以我國學說有主張當被授權人因運用授權標的遭受第三人主張侵權時，應準用民法瑕疵擔保規定使授權人承負一定責任者；反之，美國學說則普遍否認授權人存在有此等法定契約責任，此亦和雙方政策選擇保護立場互異之結果不謀而合。惟在現階段實務及學說對於授權人是否承擔被授權人之侵權瑕疵擔保責任尚無定見之下，以契約條款預先分配侵權風險最可達成管控風險之目的。美國企業之授權契約發展已十分成熟，與侵權責任分配相關之典型條款，如：授權條款、聲明擔保條款、補償條款，均存有許多附隨之細節需於契約設計談判時預先留意。惟若於契約條款中無法獲得有利於己之責任分配模式，即應評估風險性高低，決定是否採行其他之風險管控方式，如：專利侵權責任保險、企業自行提撥風險準備金、進行專利侵權訴訟評估與管理等。 3、管理制度面管控： 授權做為專利眾多換價模式之一，其背後最終之目的即在於具體落實為企業利潤收益，自然無法背離商業策略思維而獨立運作。國內現階段之專利授權實務發展成效不彰，其原因即在於國內普遍認為授權是單純法律之範疇，而未於企業內建立一套完備之授權管理制度。事實上，授權契約設計亦應與智財行銷要素、商業模式建構要素，以及企業營運流程相互配套，藉由平時有效之管理制度，方能確實將侵權風險防患於未然。 4、個案判決評析結論： 國內代工業者Quanta雖於本案中獲得最終勝訴判決，可說是貫徹了美國最高法院近年來持續傾向限縮專利權人權能之見解。然其是否代表台灣代工業者獲得了完全的勝利？往後不需再為合法採購之零件是否侵權一事苦惱？本論文採取保留之態度。因本案判決事實上僅圍繞在判斷LG與Intel授權範圍之解釋，並未對於能否以契約條款限制專利權耗盡原則表示見解。且本案判決出爐後，專利權人未來勢必轉變其授權策略，亦可預見其授權條款將更趨嚴苛，以規避判決中劃定之界限。台灣代工廠商實應謹慎集思因應策略以對。 / Taiwan OEMs are often situated in the role as licensees with inferior bargaining power when negotiated license agreements with foreign companies, and usually had no choice but to accept unfair contract terms. Therefore, Taiwan companies cannot get ride of high royalties and infringement penalty for all these years. This paper aims to discuss how to reduce potential patent infringement risk under the license system. The discussion will be elaborated from three aspects: Legal, Contract, and Management, and it will also try to propose some feasible risk management strategies. Furthermore, the paper will include a case study on Quanta v. LG, which is believed to be the most significant patent infringement case in United States Supreme Court in 2008.Through the analysis of Court opinions, the thesis then proposes some different suggestions about conversion of the patentee’ license strategies and how Taiwan OEMs should cope with the change in the future. 1.Legal Aspect: The defendant of a infringement case can apply for the doctrine of patent exhaustion, implied license, and sublicense. These doctrines are derived from patent right essential limitation. The U.S. law develops a lot of different models of patent exhaustion and implied license. It often depends on the interpretation of the terms of license agreement whether theses doctrines should be applied to individual case. This demonstrates the importance of precise definition and arrangement of contracts in advance. 2.Contract Aspect: The contract qualification of patent license agreement are different in Taiwan Law and the U.S. Law. Taiwan law intensifies licensor’s liability than American Law. Some Taiwan theories consider that when the licensee is accused of infringement because of the use of licensed articles, the licensor should have liability corresponding to the liability of warranty against defects in Civil Law. On the contrary, the majority of American theories deny such contract liability from law of licensor. Such difference corresponds to the different policies adopted in both countries. Since the defect warranty liability of the licensors are still in dispute, it will be the best way for risk management to distribute the infringement liability of both parties in contract explicitly. License agreement research has been fully developed in the U.S.. Grant Clause, Representations & Warranties and Indemnifications are all accompanied with details to be concerned. If the corporation unfortunately cannot obtain favorable clauses for its own side, it should evaluate risk to decide should it adopt another way for risk control, such as insurance, setting up risk reserves or litigation management. 3.Management Aspect: License is one of business models for corporation to make profit from patent. Its main purpose is to realize intangible patents into tangible profit. Accordingly, licensing strategy cannot be apart from commercial strategies. Patent license practice is still immature in Taiwan. Domestic corporations generally consider license as only a legal issue and do not properly construct a management system. In fact, license agreement design is a multidisciplinary subject and should coordinate with IP marketing strategies, business model, and enterprise operation procedure. Effective management system can establish necessary precautions against infringement liabilities. 4.Case Study: United States Supreme Court finally decided in favor of Quanta, Taiwan OEM, in Quanta v. LG case. The judgment does not mean a complete victory for Taiwan OEMs and neither did it indicate that the manufacturers do not need to bother for patent infringement by combining licensed components. Because the Court opinion only focuses within the scope of the license agreement by LG to Intel, without mentioning about if license conditions could break free of the doctrine of patent exhaustion. Furthermore, the stricter license conditions from the licensor is expectable after this case. Taiwan OEMs should make their best to find a solution.

『智慧財產』是二十一世紀世界產業競爭的決勝關鍵。智慧財產的佈局、產出及保護固然非常重要，但是最終還是需要積極的運用，發揮智慧財產這種無形資產獨有之國際性、重複利用性及同時異地併行使用實施之特性，彰顯其最大化之價值。世界各國政府在積極建置各種政策手段提升智慧財產運用之同時，也考慮到自身國家安全及國內產業競爭力消長之影響，大多規範了一系列智慧財產輸出到國境之外的運用管制。智慧財產之積極運用與境外實施管制，是兩種截然不同，有時甚至是互相衝突之面向，需要有清晰的觀念，才能建置雙贏策略，讓國內產業在決勝關鍵所向無敵。 我國科技基本法自民國88年公佈實施以來已有十年。智慧財產的產出、保護及運用在這十年間突飛猛進。雖然如此，但是仍有許多配套措施及觀念尚未成熟的建立起來。對於彰顯及發揮智慧財產價值所面對之『境外實施管制機制』更是有相對檢視之急迫性。在『國際技術移轉制度理論與實務』（王偉霖、劉江彬 著，2010年9月初版）劉江彬教授序中，劉教授特別指出這一點，認為應該突破其限制。我國在智慧財產方面之創新管理成就，中國也在快速學習，急起直追，從中國十二五計畫之政策可以看出他們更在發揚創新商業化之投資，學習我們企業的經營哲學。台灣有相當多的創新能量，蘊含智慧財產運用之潛力，政府可以從更宏觀的角度思考，發揮台灣的『軟實力』，實現台灣的願景。 本研究針對經濟事務財團法人研究機構，於政府資助產出之專利權在中華民國管轄區域外使用實施所需要事前陳報政府主管機關核准之規定嘗試提出更有效率之管理機制。 本研究比較美國、日本、大陸及台灣之政府資助產出之成果下放、技術出口管制、技術與投資境外實施管制相關法規之規範與作法，並訪問各國極具智慧財產管理運用代表性之組織--Association of University Technology Manager (AUTM) 及Licensing Executive Society (LES) 總會之會長、美國Stanford University技轉辦公室主任、美國前University of Washington負責技術移轉之副校長、日本東京大學技轉辦公室主任、前新加坡大學之技轉辦公室主任、徐小波大律師、台灣積體電路股份有限公司負責技術移轉之法務處宿文堂處長、政治大學商學院智慧財產研究所王偉霖教授及我國技術服務業之宇東公司副執行長等在智慧財產授權領域之產官學研專家學者，彙整歸納他們之看法及筆者之意見。再綜整工業技術研究院過去十年來向經濟部提出境外實施申請之案件，以三案不同技術、授權模式及授權區域之案件為案例探討。對照經濟部投資業務處對於我國境外投資之管理規範及審核要項，對於經濟部技術處目前審核境外實施作業，分析實務操作面之問題所在，進而提出『分類分級管理』之構想。視專利權之技術內容及授權模式，將審查作業分為高度管理、低度管理及事後報備。希望未來境外實施之管制也能夠兼顧行政成本降低、多元化彈性模式及商機時效。 本研究分別對政府及申請人提出建議，並由微觀到鉅觀，對我國智慧財產落實運用之全面性結構問題提出後續可繼續研究之議題供參。 對於政府處理其出資產出之成果的境外實施管制，建議涉及國家安全之技術輸出可比照國際作法採取『高度管理』。對於不涉及國家安全之智慧財產境外實施可採『低度管理』。同時建立具體明確可預期之審理標準、流程及正面或負面表列之技術清單。專利之非專屬授權及已經經過政府相關單位審核者，建議可採『事後報備』簡化流程。進一步考量規劃逐步建立企業及研發機構境外實施『自主管理』機制。至於境外實施之對價應回歸『商業談判』之市場機制，政府不需過多干涉。最後建議加強政府承辦人員對於智慧財產管理運用理論及實務認識之訓練。 在目前政府『境外實施』機制尚未調整之前，本研究綜整過去工業技術研究院申請境外實施之經驗，對於申請人提出建議作法，希望有助於審查流程之加速。事前與政府機關承辦人多溝通有絕對必要，充分瞭解其關切之事項，並備妥相關之文件。要求境外實施之廠商直接向政府承辦機關關切不必然有助於加速審核流程，有時反而弄巧反拙，造成承辦人之困擾，相對的攪亂了審核的節奏。 『境外實施』僅為提升智慧財產運用的一個點，必須要達到數個點的突破，形成面的結構調整，後續仍然有相當多的議題需要繼續研究，提出解決方案。例如修改科技基本法以明確擴大適用之層面至政府相關研究機關及學校—如中央研究院、公立大學等。這些機關是政府單位智慧財產之重要生產者，與下放之執行機構一樣，需突破國有財產法及政府採購法以發揮智慧財產之價值，但是同時適用之政府機關應配套建立智慧財產管理及評鑑機制。本研究以經濟事務研究機構之境外實施為限，其他仍然有教育體系之學校及經濟事務以外之研究機構之境外實施制度值得一窺。 本研究參酌世界各國之作法，搭配本研究生多年在工研院之經驗，檢視目前我國之實務運作，以學術討論之立場，結合實務與理論，嘗試提出一些看法，希望能夠提供給政府宏觀的思考，構建更契合打造台灣為亞洲樞紐之願景的機制。但本研究之所有論述純屬本研究生之個人觀點，不代表工研院或其他任何機構與單位之立場。 / “Intellectual Property” is the key factor to winning the industrial competition among competitive countries in the twenty-first century. Although domestic products and well-protected intellectual property are both extremely important, intellectual property should ultimately be used actively in order to maximize its core value. While governments around the world enthusiastically harness a variety of policy instruments to actively promote the use of intellectual property, they also take into account the security and competitiveness of their nations’ own domestic industries, as well as the impact of growth and decline on their economy. With these concerns, most of the intellectual property outputs are regulated by a series of overseas licensing restrains. The active usage of intellectual property and the control over overseas licensing are issues that are usually mutually independent. However, they sometimes conflict with each other. Only a clear and thorough understanding of both topics can allow one to establish a well-rounded strategy that creates a win-win situation in reference to the relationship between overseas licensing and domestic products. The Fundamental Science and Technology Act of the Republic of China has been in effect for a decade since its original ratification. Even so, there are still a lot of support measures and concepts established by the Act that have yet to be fully developed. For example, the “Overseas Licensing” control mechanism within the Act is an important measure that has received minimal development, and is in urgent need of having its political limitations removed for it to become more effective. This study compares United States, Japan, China and Taiwan’s export controls and overseas licensing laws. By visiting leaders of those intellectual property management representative organizations - -Association of University Technology Manager (AUTM) and Licensing Executive Society (LES), Director of the United States Stanford University Technology Transfer Office, former Vice President responsible for technology transfer of University of Washington, Director of Technology Transfer Office of University of Tokyo, Ex-Director of the Office of Technology Transfer of University of Singapore, Professor Paul S. P. Hsu, Chairman & CEO of PHYCOS International Co., Ltd, Director of Legal Transactions of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd., National Chengchi University Institute of Intellectual Property Business School Professor Wang Weilin and Vice President of Tanspercific IP Ltd. , the study summarized views and opinions of these professionals . The author analyzed overseas licensing cases that Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) applied over the last decade in their technology, business model, and licensing area. Using the analysis of the practical problems in the overseas licensing control regulations and rules under the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the author proposed a concept of “classification management” ideas. According to this concept, the technical content of patent rights and licensing models and their management will be reviewed in three different levels, including high degree management, low degree management and post-filing. In the future, the costs of administration, the diversity of business models, and the flexibility in time should be considered in all cases of overseas licensing. The overseas licensing control that is related to national security should take a “high degree of management”. The rest of which do not involve national security can be reviewed under a “low degree of management”. Non-exclusive patent license and the case which has already been reviewed by any government agencies under the overseas licensing control should be reviewed under “post-filing management” to simplify the process. Furthermore, government should consider the gradual establishment of self-management mechanism as an “Internal Control Program” in the industry and research institute. Without excessive government interference, the terms and considerations of an overseas licensing should return to” commercial market negotiations mechanism”. Government administrators who are involved in the intellectual property management affairs need to strengthen their knowledge, vision and experiences in the field of intellectual property by training courses. This study further points out several topics related to the need of follow-up studies which include extending the entity who can apply under the Fundamental Science and Technology Act to governmental natural research institutes and schools - such as Academia Sinica, public universities and so on in order to break through the National Property Act and the Government Procurement Law for getting more freedom and flexibility in Intellectual property management. Since this study focuses on Economic Affairs related overseas licensing control system, fields that are outside of this area such as educational system and other Minister which might have the same issue is worth a glimpse. This study is based on the experiences that author had when working in ITRI and the general practice in overseas licensing field, trying to raise view point from broader angle for government’s consideration. Every view point raised under this study is the observation of the author himself purely which does not represent or reflect ITRI’s thoughts whatsoever.

專利聯盟（patent pools）可以創造龐大的促進競爭效益，但是同時也可能產生妨礙競爭與創新之疑慮，若法律完全不對專利聯盟之運作進行規範，專利權人將得以利用專利聯盟制度作為提昇自己市場獨占力量，抑制市場競爭，甚至是濫用專利排他權的工具。為了畫下專利權人正當行使權利之界限，維護專利制度的政策目的，以規範專利聯盟所產生之專利權濫用問題，美國的法制上遂逐漸發展出以專利權濫用原則（patent misuse doctrine）與競爭法（即美國之反托拉斯法），對專利聯盟進行管制的結構。美國法上之專利權濫用原則創設之初係為了限制輔助侵權理論之適用，此理論最初與競爭法制並無交集，判斷的重點在於專利權人是否逾越其權限，之後隨著1988年美國專利法之修正，以及學理實務的改變，現今專利權濫用原則的認定已牽涉競爭法「合理原則」之判斷，然而，許多爭議也逐漸浮現，例如應如何判斷專利權人在專利聯盟中所為之限制競爭行為是否成立濫用，專利權濫用原則與競爭法之間之關係為何，甚至專利權濫用原則本身是否仍有必要存在，這些問題都尚待解決，因此現今正是對專利權濫用理論進行全面檢討之時機。 本文以下將針對專利聯盟所涉及之專利權濫用問題進行研究，對於實務上專利權人利用專利聯盟所進行之搭售、包裹授權、聯合訂價、競業禁止條款等行為進行觀察，並對其所涉及之專利權濫用問題進行初步分析。基於此一研究所獲得之基礎，本文將嘗試指出專利權濫用理論值得檢討之處，並指出專利權濫用理論兼具專利制度和競爭法制之特質，也反映了兩者間之衝突，其亦具有能夠與時俱進，以及反映專利制度政策公益之特質，因此仍有繼續存在價值。尤其係在專利聯盟成員利用彼此間競業禁止協議抑制新生替代性技術發展之情形，法院在適用競爭法合理原則時，往往因為專利聯盟所創造的促進競爭效益，以及新生技術未來發展的不確定性，而傾向認定此種契約條款為合法，忽略其所產生之抑制創新問題，此時即有適用專利權濫用原則之空間。此外，更可以考慮以我國民法第148條所規範之誠信原則與權利濫用原則作為將專利權濫用理論引入我國法之基礎，而在尚未引入以前，對於專利聯盟所涉及之專利權濫用問題，我國實務可以將美國法專利權濫用原則之理論基礎作為操作民法第148條、專利法第60條、公平交易法第18條及第19條以及其他相關規定時之指導原則。本文之意旨並非在完全以專利權濫用原則取代競爭法規範的角色，而係期待實務上應當設法對專利權濫用原則之價值進行重新評估，以賦予專利權濫用原則嶄新之生命，讓專利權濫用原則與競爭法共同形成一個完善、合理的專利權行使規範體系。 / Patent pool licensing can both create enormous pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects. Without legal intervention, the patentee would be able to manipulate the patent pool system as a mean to increase his own monopoly power, suppress competition in the market, and even misuse his patent exclusive power. In order to prevent the misuse of patent rights, protect patent policy and regulate patent misuse issues in patent pools, the U.S law system employs the “patent misuse doctrine” and competition law (antitrust law) to deal with the above issues. The patent misuse doctrine was initially designed to limit the overexpansion of the contributory infringement theory and has no relationship with competition law. The essential factor to constitute patent misuse is that the patentee extends the patent monopoly over the statutory scope of his patent right. Nevertheless, in pace with the Patent Misuse Reform Act of 1988 and the conversion of the legal practice, the patent misuse doctrine has begun to intertwine with competition law’s “rule of reason” analysis. Gradually, many disputes have emerged, such as how to determine whether the patentee’s conduct constitutes patent misuse in patent pools, what is the relationship between the patent misuse doctrine and competition law, and whether the patent misuse doctrine itself is necessary to exist. Therefore, it is high time to conduct a comprehensive review of the patent misuse theory. This article will provide insights to patent misuse issues in patent pool licensing, such as tie-in arrangement, package licensing, price fixing, non-competition agreements, etc, and review the theoretical basis of the patent misuse doctrine. This article will also submit that the patent misuse doctrine is a doctrine which has both the characteristics of patent law and competition law and can compromise the interests of these two areas of regulations. It can also reflect patent policy and grow and change with time. Therefore, it is a doctrine which should continue to exist. Particularly, in the situation which patent pool members use non-competition agreements to suppress the development of nascent substitute technologies, courts would often consider this kind of agreement to be legal because of the enormous pro-competitive effects created by the patent pool and the uncertainty of the future development of the nascent technology. At this moment, it is necessary to apply the patent misuse doctrine to deal with the problem. In addition, the principle of good faith which is encoded in article 148 of the civil code may be an appropriate medium to introduce the patent misuse doctrine into our legal system. Even if it is not yet introduced into our system, the patent misuse doctrine could be the guiding principle for our legal practitioners to apply article 148 of the civil code, article 60 of the patent act, article 18 and article 19 of the Fair Trade Act in order to deal with patent misuse issues in patent pool licensing. This article supports that the patent misuse doctrine should be refined and cooperate with competition law in order to form a complete regulation of patent misuse conducts, but it does not submit that current competition law should be entirely replaced by the patent misuse doctrine.

美國聯邦最高法院廣達v.LG案的判決結果，再次確認「專利權耗盡原則」之適用原則及標準。被告廣達電腦乃為台灣資訊代工產業的龍頭，該判決除了限制專利權人對產業鏈的不當控制外，也將影響整個產業供應鏈對於專利風險的承擔及專利授權策略。廣達案除了建立「未完成品足以體現專利物之必要特徵，且唯一用途係該專利物」及「方法權利項」適用專利權耗盡的重要標準，但也留下「附條件銷售或授權」合法性的爭議。在廣達案後續判決，對「專利權耗盡原則」的詮釋及適用，更值得加以重視。台灣資訊產業在產業供應鏈多居於「製造或組裝」角色，卻受制於上游關鍵元件的強勢及品牌客戶的訂單壓力，而被迫必須承擔產品引發的所有專利侵權的風險。如何善用廣達案及後續各國相關判決，將有助於台灣資訊代工廠商處理國際專利爭訟、專利授權等議題，並做為專利侵權抗辯手段的參考。 本論文首先從經營策略及代工模式，探討台灣資訊代工產業發展與面臨的困境。其次，從專利權與專利侵害的法律規範，到專利權耗盡原則的法理基礎做一完整論述，加以美國先前相關案例的整理及類型分析，對「專利權耗盡原則」的理論與發展做一完整的探討。更進而整理廣達案判決後美國、中國大陸及台灣重要案例，探討「專利權耗盡原則」在其專利法制及實務案例的適用及影響。接著，探討在「契約自由原則」與「專利權耗盡原則」的衝突與調和下，其對於專利授權實務的操作及影響。最後，整理台灣資訊代工產業的代工類型化與廣達案前後美國、中國大陸及台灣權利耗盡重要判決之關聯性，並提出看法及建議。本文初步結論，美國法院案例可初步解析侵權風險及專利權耗盡的適用，並在專利授權談判可提出有效因應條款。廣達案後，美國各級法院均大致遵守此一判決先例，惟中國大陸及台灣法院實務判決仍未完全採取美國的判斷原則。對於後續的研究建議，新興3D列印科技發展及應用，其引發的複雜智慧財產權及「專利權耗盡原則」適用的爭議，確實值得重視。 / Quanta v. LG reaffirmed the applicable principles and standards of the "patent exhaustion principle". As the Quanta plays the lead role in Taiwan’s Information ODM/OEM industry, this US Supreme court’s decision not only limits the patent holder improper control of the industrial chain, but also affects the entire supply chain face the risks and patent license strategies. Quanta establishes the index that "unfinished finished enough to reflect the essential features of the patent and the sole purpose thereof " and "method claim" apply to patent exhaustion. However, "conditional sale or license" is still controversial. Therefore, the Post-Quanta interpretation is worthy of attention. Taiwan's IT Industries most account for the role of "manufacture or assembly" in the supply chain. Subject to the upstream suppliers of the key components or downstream brand customers, they bear all risks caused by infringement of patented products. The Quanta case and its post development will help Taiwan Information foundries to deal with international patent litigation, patent license and etc., and take it as a means to defend against patent infringement claim. Firstly, this thesis explores the development of Taiwan's information ODM/OEM industry and the difficulties of its business strategies and ODM/OEM models. Secondly, it turns to discuss the development of the "patent exhaustion doctrine", and then reviews US critical cases of "patent exhaustion doctrine". In addition, it analyzes post-Quanta cases of the United State, China and Taiwan to discuss the application and impact of the "patent exhaustion doctrine". Furthermore it explores its operation and effect on patent license practice under the conflict and reconciliation of "freedom of contract" and "patent exhaustion doctrine". Then, it identifies Taiwan’s information OEM/OEM industry in a variety of models and associates the models with the important cases of the United States, China and Taiwan regarding patent exhaustion, and makes remarks and suggestions. Finally, this thesis preliminarily concludes that US court cases basically resolve the risk of infringement and patent exhaustion application, and patent license negotiation may be made to respond effectively to the situation. After Quanta, US courts are substantially in compliance with this precedent judgment, but not for China and Taiwan. For subsequent study suggestion, it is worth attention about dispute of the emerging 3D printing technology development and application, which link complex intellectual property rights and the application of "patent exhaustion doctrine".