『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.