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。

中國近年來為因應經濟快速發展，除極力追求技術自主與維護中國本土企業利益外，更注重自有知識產權之研發與保護。尤其兩岸地區經貿活動交流之頻繁，臺灣對中國投資方面，2011年一年間，核准對大陸投資件數575件，核准投(增)資金額更高達131億美元，且臺灣企業申請大陸專利件數逾21,600件，在在可見臺灣科技產業大規模佈局中國市場，顯見中國已成為臺灣企業專利爭訟之戰場，深入探討中國現行專利法制自刻不容緩。 2008年中國針對專利法進行第三次修法，嗣於2009年10月1日實施，在新法施行前，原侵犯專利權的賠償數額係按照權利人所受的損失或者侵權人所獲得的利益確定為依據，權利人的損失或侵權人的利益難以確定時，參照該專利許可使用費的倍數合理確定。修正後《專利法》第65條規定賠償數額按照權利人因被侵權所受實際損失確定；實際損失難以確定的，可以按照侵權人因侵權所獲的利益。權利人之損失或侵權人之獲得的利益難以確定的，參照該專利許可使用費的倍數合理確定，並明定法定賠償，將最高人民法院司法解釋規定的法定賠償提高到專利法層次，法定額度從人民幣（下同）5,000元至50萬元提高到1萬元至100萬元，更明確化適用賠償數額之順序。 本文從探討中國新專利法中專利侵權損害賠償制度出發，再透過法學實證研究之方法，檢視修法後，中國人民法院就專利糾紛適用新法之情形，據以觀察不同屬性之專利侵權糾紛與法院判賠金額間之關聯性，探究中國人民法院現行審判實務上判定賠償額之現況，並提出相關修法建議。 / In response to the fast economic growth of recent decades, the Chinese government has begun to contemplate the protection of intellectual property rights and emphasize on pursuing independent technological development. In 2011, Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs has approved 575 investments in China by Taiwanese enterprises which the total amount has reached to US13.1 billions. The number of patent applications filed by Taiwanese firms reached to 2,100 in the same year. It is therefore foreseeable that China will become a major battlefield for patent disputes between companies from around the world, especially those from Taiwan. The third round of amendments to the patent law of the P.R.C came into effect. Before this change, the amount of compensation for damages was based on the losses suffered by the right holder or the profits earned through the infringement; if it was difficult to determine the right holder’s loss or the violator’s profit, the amount was assessed by referring to the appropriate multiple of the amount of royalties of that patent under contractual license. Article 65 of the new patent law codifies that the amount of compensation for the damage caused by the infringement of the patent right shall be assessed on the basis of the actual losses suffered by the right holder; if the actual losses are difficult to determine, it may be assessed on the basis of the profits earned through the infringement; if it is difficult to determine either, the amount is assessed by reference to the appropriate multiple of the amount of royalty of that patent under contractual license. In the event that none of these amounts can be fairly ascertained, the court has the discretion to award compensation in the range of RMB 5,000 to 50,000 provided by a Supreme People’s Court judicial interpretation. Article 65 also codifies the statutory damages to between RMB 10,000 and RMB 1,000,000. This article discusses damage compensation in China’s patent litigation and develops quantitative methodologies by means of empirical study, which includes examinations on 400judgments of patent infringement cases issued by Chinese courts and interviews with scholars and Chinese judges. The research results provide a reference for estimating litigation efficiency, as well as a proposal to corporations for framing patent enforcement strategies in China.

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.

基於智慧財產權對於企業之成長、獲利能力有關鍵性的影響，企業越來越重視智慧財產權的研發及運用策略，有別於以往企業將智慧財產權用在保護自己產品避免被指控侵權，多數企業現在亦將智慧財產權用於干擾競爭對手之商業佈局。又臺灣廠商因智慧財產權佈局較弱，往往係被國際廠商提告的對象，則為免影響企業經營核心事業及避免鉅額之損害賠償，企業傾向選擇與對方和解，本文即係探討倘企業面臨專利訴訟，且經適當之商業評估後，認為與原告和解為最佳的選擇，企業應採取何種方式為自己爭取談判時間，經本文整理後，企業除法律層面的回應—於訴訟中積極答辯、提起反訴或另訴、利用動議拖延訴訟庭審時間，亦可採取商業層面的回應—對外收購專利、策略併購或投資、有效利用友好公司及策略夥伴等，以達到和解之目的。 / Because of intellectual property have key influences that impacts on growth and profitability of individual companies, companies pay much more attention to intellectual property in developments and application strategies. Unlike in the past when most companies use their own intellectual property to protect products and avoid attacks, they use their own intellectual property to interfere with business plans of competitors. As Taiwanese companies are weaker in intellectual property portfolio, leading international companies were often filed lawsuits against them. To avoid being ordered to pay huge amount damages and be able to focus on core business, Taiwanese companies are inclined to settle. This study is focus on when a company evaluates the situation and then decides to settle, the company should take what kind of actions to earn more time to negotiate a settlement. In conclusion, a company can take legal actions such as, defending the lawsuit, bringing the counterclaim, filing another compliant against the plaintiff, filing motions to postpone trial, but also can buy patents, make strategic investments, and make full use of friendly companies and strategic partners in order to reach a settlement.

本研究從DNA定序產業之美國專利侵權訴訟，了解該產業中廠商的訴訟行為與系爭專利之特性。本研究由商用資料庫取得DNA定序產業之美國專利侵權訴訟共100件及其系爭專利共168件，分析訴訟資訊、訴訟主體資訊(原告及被告)和訴訟客體資訊(系爭專利和被控侵權產品)。本研究也由次級資料中歸類各廠商在DNA定序產業鏈中之位置和其各世代產品技術之發展。由訴訟主體資訊可得知在DNA定序產業中，主要發起美國專利侵權訴訟之廠商為中游的儀器平台廠商，被控專利侵權的廠商也多為具有相同商業模式在同樣產業鏈位置上的競爭者。而由訴訟客體資訊中，除了以產品技術結構定位系爭專利之保護標的和技術特徵外，也從專利的被引證數、專利家族大小、所有權移轉次數、國際分類號分佈等指標比較系爭專利和一組同樣專利權人在相同時間間隔內申請的同技術領域之對照組專利，可發現系爭專利和對照組專利相比屬於較有價值的專利。 / The present research analyzes the U.S. patent infringement cases of the DNA sequencing industry to understand the features of patent-in-suit and litigation behaviors in said industry. The present research obtains 100 U.S. patent infringement cases and 168 patent-in-suit from commercial databases. The litigation history, parties in the litigation (plaintiff and defendant), subject matter of the litigation (the patent-in-suit and the infringing products) are analyzed. The present research identifies the position of different corporate entities in the DNA sequencing industry chain and the development of each generations of DNA sequencing technology. By analyzing the parties in the litigation, the present research identifies that most of the plaintiffs are corporate entities developing sequencing instrument, and most of the defendants are competitiors having the same business model with the plaintiffs. By analyzing subject matter of the litigation, the present research identifies the technical features and subject matter of the patent-in-suit. The present research compares the citation, patent family size, number of ownership transfer and IPC distribution between the patent-in-suit and a control group patents of the same technical field within the same time frame. The patent-in-suit is more valuable than the control group patents.

近十年高科技產業的發展，自iPod、iPhone至iPad等行動裝置的創新、問世，無疑是由Apple公司獨領風騷、引領潮流，而這些行動裝置的硬體型態或許不同，軟體、作業系統也不盡相同，但唯一的共通點就是大量採用「觸控」技術。在台灣企業中，義隆電子及禾瑞亞兩間公司均是相當專注於發展觸控偵測技術之公司，而此二間企業，面臨商場上白熱化的競爭，尤其是作為原告的義隆電子將如何以訴訟發動攻擊，而身為訴訟經驗淺薄的被告禾瑞亞公司又將如何應戰，均係本研究擬探討的問題。 透過蒐集文獻的方式，本研究對觸控面板產業的發展、各國際大廠在觸控專利的佈局做了基本的鋪墊。有鑑於義隆電子本身在專利侵權訴訟中有十多年豐富的經驗，故本文以義隆電子的訴訟經驗為藍本，歸納出若干訴訟發動及應訴策略，並將義隆電子與禾瑞亞訴訟中發生之具體問題納入各該策略章節一併討論，例如義隆電子起訴動機、訴訟標的價額之認定、定暫時狀態處分、以及企業普遍以發布重大訊息之方式公告起訴他企業，是否變相地違反公平交易委員會關於警告函之規定等。 本研究發現義隆電子因為歷經眾多國內外專利訴訟的洗禮，因此就訴訟各個階段的掌握及訊息處理較為嫻熟，主要亦由其掌握訴訟的節奏。然而，身為被告的企業應在訴訟中多採取積極的攻擊態勢，而非僅消極防守，包括接收到警告函時，應以適切的意見書及信函回應；若確遭起訴，應先為程序抗辯，尤其在起訴成本低廉的我國，盡可能的提高原告應付的裁判費實係被告方首先應嘗試爭取的戰場。此外，於訴訟中針對系爭專利提起舉發案、或是向公平交易委員會提出違反公平交易法之檢舉皆是被告最好的反制措施。然而，預防勝於治療，企業內部若能建立日常的專利監控機制，時時關注競爭對手動態，方為治標又治本的方法。

人類經濟活動重心之變革推動著產業競爭的樣貌，於二十一世紀的今日，知識已成為經濟活動中最主要之價值驅力，與之相應的，產業中智慧財產層面的競爭也逐漸受到重視，發展至今，智慧財產已深入產業鏈且細化為各種以智慧財產運用為中心以創造獲利之企業。 半導體產業於台灣經濟發展之推進中佔有關鍵性之地位，隨著台灣廠商在全球產業鏈中扮演的角色重要性與日俱增，難以避免必須因應半導體產業中由智慧財產所造就的新興商業模式，其中，智慧財產研發公司拋棄舊有以生產製造為主之商業模式，開創以知識為本的競爭場域，並挾其智慧財產進行全球化的授權以及訴訟，扮演著遊戲規則的創造者，尤其記憶體產業之兩大智慧財產研發公司Rambus Inc.以及Tessera Technology Inc.，自2000年起不斷於全球提起專利訴訟，對整體產業乃至於台灣廠商帶來無法忽視之影響。 本研究試圖建立分析智慧財產研發公司之架構，亦即由該等公司之策略演進出發，宏觀的了解其於變動的競爭環境中如何發揮企業優勢；其次，以公司策略定位為基礎，進一步推動資源投入之分配，並形塑商業模式的產生；最後，本研究萃取智慧財產研發公司商業模式中較具特色且影響廣泛之訴訟階段，藉由記憶體產業中之個案分析比較之方式進行深入之實證研究，以管窺該等公司之專利運用模式，期能透過提升對於智慧財產研發公司策略定位、商業模式以及訴訟模式之了解，活化企業智慧財產之管理，並提供台灣廠商面對專利授權與訴訟時因應之基礎。 / The revolution of economic activities of human beings has been the force behind the changing format of competition among industries. In the contemporary 21st century, knowledge has become one of the most valuable forces in economic activities; correspondently, the competition strategy of intellectual property also seized much attention. As of today, intellectual property has already been integrated in each and every industry chains and developed into various enterprises which earn profits by operating it. Semi-conductor industry played an important role in the process of Taiwan’s economic development. As Taiwanese companies claim more crucial roles in the global industry chain, they are inevitably forced to deal with the new business model established by the creation of intellectual properties. Among them, intellectual property development companies have withdrawn from old business model of production and manufacturing and create a new competition field on the basis of intellectually properties. Intellectual property development companies engage in global wide license and litigation, acting as the rule-maker within the new frame of competition. Rambus Inc. and Tessera Technology Inc. are the two leading intellectual property development companies which brought lawsuits internationally since 2000, creating serious impacts on both the entire industry and Taiwanese companies. This research aims to establish an analytical framework to observe intellectually property development companies, starting from the progress of strategy, try to understand how to exercise their advantages in the ever-changing competitive business world; furthermore, based on business strategies, this research look further into the distribution of resources and the creation of business models; lastly, this research closely examines the litigation phase of the business model of intellectual property development companies by comparative case studies, in order to conclude the operation pattern of patents of such companies. With further exploration on the strategic positioning, business model and litigation pattern of intellectual property development companies, this research provides not only a deeper understanding on the management of IPRs but also a framework for Taiwanese companies to cope with patent licenses and litigations.

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.

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.