真品平行輸入合法性與否的問題，可說是國際貿易與廠商行銷所造成的問題，由於商品的流動乃是全球性的，而商標權確有其屬地性與獨立性，因此爭議不休，各種立論雜陳，而爭議了幾十年仍難以有一明確的結論。 本論文則從另一個角度切入，跳過「真品平行輸入」合法性與否的爭論，而透過商標權授權契約、商標權移轉等各種手段，將可能發生「真品平行輸入」的情況，加以規避。而使相關廠商能獲得我國商標法的保護。 總結全篇論文，共計得到下列命題： 一、在資訊產業，產品的生產與商標使用之間，關係越來越複雜，各種代工模式的產生，使得傳統認為商標最重要的功能是表彰商品來源，漸漸淡化，而必須以另一種思考模式來加以因應。 二、『真正商品』的範圍應該要稍微限縮，唯有在內、外國商標權人為同一人或內外國商標權人雖非同一，但是相互之間彼此有授與商標使用權、享有對造國家商標使用權的關係下，所涉及的輸入商品方為「真正商品」。 三、不開放真品平行輸入，並不一定會造成合法的經銷商獨占市場。只要市場上有相同或類似的替代商品存在，市場上的公平競爭秩序，仍得以維持。 四、在「屬地主義」原則下，在他國享有商標專用權之商標，在我國並不一定得享有商標權保護。甚至有可能成為仿冒品而觸犯法律。 五、在「屬地主義」原則下，權利耗盡原則的適用範圍可能受到限制。 六、未註冊或申請註冊中之商標得授與他人使用，但被授與人在授與當時尚未取得任何法律上的權利，僅是得以對於授與人主張合法使用。須待授與之商標，經授與人合法申請註冊完成，方使商標授與使用契約成為商標授權契約，而取得商標法上之相關權利。 七、商標在「屬地主義」原則下，外國之商標善意先使用人，不得主張善意優先使用，而不受我國商標法之規範。亦即各國商標權必須分別註冊申請，才能得到各國商標法之保護。 八、商標授權契約，契約標的或契約當事人發生變動；應視商標之性質，在契約中約定處理的方式。 九、因商標權特殊的性質，商標授權契約中的授權條款較其他智慧財產權之授權條款，較不受公平交易法之約束。 十、商標授權後之商標受讓人成為授權契約之契約當事人，但是否可對抗第三人，仍以是否登記為準。 十一、在廣義平行輸入的各類型中，有一些類型並不屬於真品平行輸入。業者可透過訂定商業契約與商標授權契約等手段，避開真品平行輸入的類型，來獲取商標法的保護。 十二、商標授權契約的訂定，關係業者的權益至鉅，業者可根據第五章第三節的各款說明，追求自身最大的權益。

開放原始碼軟體（Open Source Software），是由一群相信電腦軟體世界應以開放為主流的軟體創作者所提倡，他們認為電腦軟體之創造、開發、修正、改寫與加值等行為，不應受限於原始碼不開放的困擾及智慧財產權保護過度的法律障礙，而應藉由公開程式原始碼的方式，供其他程式設計者對軟體加以改進，以提升其效能。由於此種軟體開發模式具備取得成本低、穩定與安全性、彈性與自主權、堅強後援等優勢，這些優勢已逐漸被企業界所發覺，趨使其開始採用開放原始碼軟體的步伐，同時也創造了龐大的潛在商機。例如國際知名業者IBM、Intel等紛紛投入開放原始碼軟體相關產品的推廣與銷售，甚至連政府單位，包括歐盟、美國、中國、日本、韓國等各國政府，也大力推動使用開放原始碼軟體。在此風潮之下，我國政府也制定了一系列發展開放原始碼軟體的政策及方向。 如果能夠適當的運用開放原始碼軟體，確實是可以為企業或組織節省大量成本，創造龐大的潛在商機。至於如何將潛在商機轉換為企業的實質利潤，有此即有賴商業模式的建立。 然而，就在開放原始碼逐漸形成趨勢之際，其發展卻也面臨一些新興的法律議題挑戰。相較於專屬軟體在程式開發及授權合約中通常會提供不侵犯他人智慧財產權的保障措施，開放原始碼軟體由於係以社群開發及免費授權的方式發展，在此方面的保障可能較不周全，而SCO與IBM及Novell之間錯綜複雜的智慧財產侵權糾紛，更突顯此類問題的重要與複雜。 除了智慧財產權方面的法律風險外，開放原始碼所依據的授權契約之解釋、執行、契約效力也是一個很大的問題。截至目前為止，經OSI（Open Source Initiative）所認可的開放原始碼授權契約已達58種之多，未來還會持續增加。由於授權契約種類繁多，且各契約之規定及限制不同，也造成開放原始碼擴展上的阻力。 有鑑於此，本論文主要探討的重點包括開放原始碼軟體可採行之商業模式，尤其是有意利用開放原始碼軟體為營收模式的企業應如何評估本身的核心能力及優勢所在，依情況採取適合自己的模式；另一重點則是探討開放原始碼所涉及之法律問題，包括維持開放原始碼運作制度的授權契約，並分析各類授權契約在使用上可能面臨到的風險與問題。除此之外，也將分析開放原始碼軟體可能面臨的智慧財產相關爭議，包括軟體專利的問題、著作權的問題、營業秘密的問題等。 開放原始碼軟體對於台灣是機會，也是挑戰。如果能夠妥善利用開放原始碼軟體的優點，將能為台灣的資訊產業帶來跳躍式的成長契機。 / Open Source Software, which is promoted by a group of software programmers who believe that computer software should open to the public, and the creation, development, modifying, value-added shouldn’t be bothered by the over-protection of intellectual property rights. By disclosing the source code, other programmers can improve the efficacy of the software. With the advantages of low cost, high security, high stability, plus the minimum control by the right holders, the open source software movement has gained major industry players’ support. For example, IBM, Intel have all expressed their support for the open source movement and also developed relevant products using open source software. In addition to industry, many countries, such as European countries, US, Japan, China, Korea, also show their strong support for the open source movement. Under such trend, Taiwanese government also takes positive measures to promote the development of open source industry’s development and application in Taiwan. It indeed can save a large amount of cost and create huge profit if making use of open source software properly. How to transfer the potential business opportunity to substantial revenue depends on the establishment of business models. Nevertheless, while open source movement is getting momentum, it also faces renewed legal challenges. Compared to propriety software, which usually has non-infringement of intellectual property right clauses, open source software can’t provide this kind of guarantee. This issue was especially noticeable when SCO sued IBM for 5 billions damages in 2003. In addition to the legal risks, the most stringent challenge for the open source movement is its license structure. Until May, 2006, there are 58 open source license agreements have being certified by Open Source Initiatives (OSI), the open source software’s alliance. The problem, however, is that every open source license agreement has different terms and conditions. With so many different license agreements and such uncertain legal effects of those agreements, it erected a barrier for the wide-spread application of open source software. As a result, this thesis would like to conduct a thorough research on open source software from different dimensions. One part is about the business models which can be adopted by the open source software, and this part will especially focus on how the industry players evaluate their own core abilities and advantages to adopt suitable business models. The other emphasis is on the legal issues of open source software, including the license agreements, the legal risks and intellectual property problems. Open source software is a chance and also a challenge for Taiwan. If we can make good use of the advantages of open source software, it will definitely bring immense progress for the IT industry of our country.

知識經濟時代的來臨，財富的創造已不是來自土地與勞工等傳統生產要素，而是在於知識的創造與累積，台灣土地貧瘠、缺乏天然資源，但擁有豐富的科技人力資源，能有效運用這些知識資本，將是台灣經濟發展的重要關鍵。大學研究經費豐足、聚集博士級以上頂尖研究人才、其研究領域多屬前瞻、初期階段的發現，雖具開發成為新產品或服務之潛力，但現階段未必為業界所青睞的應用科技解決方案。如何尋求具備遠見，願擔風險投入早期技術研發的合作廠商，建立長期的合作關係，將大學強大的研發能量擴散、釋放到民間，有效地將政府資助大學所得的研發成果，移轉予產業界進行商業化的步驟，是促進產業升級經濟發展的重要機制。 是以近年來各國極力推動產學間的合作，希冀在大學知識傳授與探索研究之基本任務仍得確保的前提下，建立有效的技術授權機制，將學界創新研發的能量，引導入產業界，協助產業提升創新研發之競爭力，同時也能為學校的研發成果創造新的價值，而達產學雙贏的局面。 授權契約是技術移轉流程的最後一步，但往往為人忽視，前階段的評估協商與最後的擬約訂約被切割處理，特別在欠缺法務資源的大學技轉單位，簽訂授權契約時，僅使用制式、簡陋之契約範本，填入授權時間、授權金、權利金、授權標的等項目，少就契約文字進行訂正，並檢視契約範本設計之用字遣詞是否符合該次授權協議談判之內容。在此背景下，本研究即欲將策略思考帶進契約的設計，探討大學技術授權之策略考量，以及如何將之轉化成契約文字，使技術授權之目的能被落實。 本研究試圖從探討產學合作之機制與困難、大學技術移轉模式相關之豐富文獻中，整理出大學技術移轉授權的策略考量，並進一步分析在確定策略考量與策略目標之下，可能的授權模式為何，各種授權模式在實際運用時常遭遇何種的困難，這些困難是否能透過契約設計之安排，使技術移轉的策略目標順利達成。接著將進一步以美國技轉績效傲人的史丹福大學，與台灣研發能量最豐、學術資源最足的台灣大學兩校之授權契約範本作為研究個案，比較契約設計的應然與實然。 本研究透過對我國與美國技術授權相關文獻的分析，並以美國史丹佛大學與國立台灣大學之契約範本作為個案研究對象，歸納整理後得出結論為台灣各大學因為技轉的風氣未盛，契約的使用量與重要性自然被嚴重低估，我國大學並未設計與其策略與發展領域、特色相符的契約範本，大部分都直接沿用國科會提供之契約範本，契約條款的設計不夠細緻，容易流於只是策略的宣示，未能透過交易條件的安排達到授權策略預設的目標。相較美國史丹福大學因技轉風氣興盛，契約的類型發展成熟，契約內容與授權策略高度呼應，使授權的進行與大學原始的教學研究使命可以相輔相成。我國大學之技術授權契約存在很大的改善空間。 本研究建議大學應制訂明文之技轉策略書，向廠商宣傳大學技術授權之使命，並儘快對現行使用契約之契約進行撤底檢視與修正，完備契約範本的內容，可以有效增進締約的效率，同時可以思考契約作為宣傳性質的工具，例如因應技術特性，設計技術移轉的定型化契約，讓潛在被授權人清楚瞭解大學技術授權契約的交易條件，透過網路將完整的資訊揭露與友善便宜的締約程序，以有效提高的授權活動的效率與成功率。 / In knowledge based economy, how to create and accumulate knowledge assets dominates the fortune-making. Taiwan is short of natural resources but full of technology human reseources. Hence, how to apply knowledge adequately become the key factor to improve Taiwan’s economic growth. The abundant funds and outstanding research professionals are the advantages of university. However, the researches usually belong to early-stage ones and hardly meet the practical needs of industries. Universities need foresighted industry partners who is willing to risk investing in technology commercialization. University-Industry Cooperation is the important mechanism that helps the industry development through knowledge transfer. Thus, governments encourage enthusiastically the cooperation between university and industry. The target of Univeristy-Industry Cooperation is to assure the essential function of education and research of the university and build up an effective mechanism of technology licensing to introduce academic R&D energy into the industry. The cooperation can thus enhance the innovation competency of industry and create new value for the R&D results of academia, to build a win-win situation. License agreement is the last mile of the whole technology transfer process but its importance is usually ignored. For the limited legal resources of university TTOs (technology transfer office), all Taiwan universities use a formulaic contract provided by NSC (National Science Council) and seldom amend the details to meet their own need for individual transactions. However, licensing approaches, even for comparable technologies, can vary considerably from case to case. This thesis will bring licensing strategy into contract design, analyze university licensing strategy, and elaborate the transformation from strategy to contract for the purpose of technology licensing. This paper reviews literatures concerning university-industry cooperation and the technology transfer models and outlines university licensing strategy. The discussion further elaborate goals of licensing, possible licensing models and pathways, and find out the difficulties during license process. The design of contract also try to solve all these problems and fulfill the purpose of technology transfer. The thesis also compare the difference between the ideal and practice of licensing contract design through the study of contract format of Stanford University and National Taiwan University. Through the studies, the thesis propose that the significance of licensing contract is much underestimated due to the immaturity of university-industry license transactions in Taiwan. Unlike universities in the U.S., Taiwan’s universities do not design licensing contracts according to their licensing strategy and academic developments. The disregard of contract design will cause the impracticality of licensing strategy and thus be unable to achieve the original goal of technology transfer. A mature contract design which corresponds to the licensing strategy will connect the technology transfer to the academic research purpose, which can be observed in the case of Stanford University. This paper suggests that universities should set up a clear licensing strategy book of their own and widely announce to industry. Taiwan universities should reform the contract format as soon as possible and learn to take licensing contracts as a marketing tool, to promote a model contract for special technology licensing with detail information on it, to help potential licensee to understand the bargaining condition of the contract. Universities can provide complete information and easier contracting process through the internet, to improve the efficiency and prosperity of technology transfer.

長期以來，商業交易多半是單純為取得某種物品或權利，由交易雙方協商並訂立合約，如買方為取得房地而願給付價金，賣方為取得金錢乃願出售房屋。然而二十世紀之後，經濟型態的轉變為交易的內容帶來了重大的轉變，智慧財產權的讓與或授權交易漸趨熱門，在商業經營中時時刻刻上演。如同典型的交易一樣，就取得權利者而言，其願意將所有的專利、商標、著作權等權利加以利用，以獲取金錢利益；反之，欲利用者則透過與權利擁有者訂立合約的方式，將之利用於所生產的商品或服務，增加其邊際效用，獲取更大的利潤。 在此背景之下，智慧財產的讓與或是授權，其交易的型態與方式漸行複雜，對於企業的經營更是有著決定性的影響，加上智慧財產權，可說是法律所創設出來的權利，其異於傳統財產實體的特質，更難以令習慣傳統交易的我們加以掌握，因此有深入研究的必要，本論文即基於此背景，開始關於智慧財產諸多活動中的一個課題-「授權」活動展開研究。 因此，本篇論文研究有以下的目的： 一、 從高科技產業獨特的環境去瞭解智慧財產授權所扮演的角色。 二、 智慧財產授權對於高科技企業經營策略之影響與作用，反之，高科技經營策略之擬定後，是否可以傑由授權達成其目的。 三、 高科技企業在面臨智慧財產授權契約談判時，應如何爭取最佳利益。 四、 高科技企業營運策略中，關於簽訂授權契約可能引發的法律相關議題應如何面對。 本研究即基於上述目的，從法律面及商業管理的角度去探討智慧財產授權活動所引發企業經營的策略意涵，以三個層次分別來說明：一、企業經營層次；二、授權契約談判層次；三、相關法律議題層次。透過三個層次的分析與歸納，本研究針對高科技企業之經營與智慧財產權授權的策略運用提出下列數點之建議： （一） 智慧財產授權是一個複雜的領域，涉及法律、管理、技術等面向，因此我國高科技企業必須走出權利金追索與授權的泥沼中，重新架構授權與企業的經營策略。 （二） 我國高科技企業若欲藉由授權活動予以獲利，則最重要的是將企業轉型為真正的知識型企業，持續研發，蓄積優質的智慧財產權，如此才能將智慧財產授權活動的功用發揮到最大。 （三） 企業應培養相關智慧財產權授權相關人才，並考量是否建制一個獨立的智慧財產授權部門。 （四） 授權契約的簽訂將會影響企業未來研發的發展方向，因此建議企業於簽署授權契約時，必須考量企業本身是否可以自行研發該技術，或是其他替代性技術的可行性，切勿因為被國外的企業一警告，即簽署智慧財產權的授權契約。 （五） 反之，既然專利訴訟需耗費大量的人力、物力、時間與金錢，因此面對專利侵權訴訟時，應考量接受授權的可能性，授權所付出的成本與進行訴訟的成本相較後取其較低者。但是需注意的是，縱使獲得他人授權，然亦不代表會侵害第三人之專利，換言之獲得一家企業的授權，並不表示已經一勞永逸的無侵權可能性。故建議企業在接受專利授權時，必須詳細的評估該專利的範圍。 （六） 授權與智慧財產的保護與執行有緊密的關係，因此企業應加強智慧財產的保護與執行，才可以降低授權活動所面臨的風險。 （七） 智慧財產授權，基於智慧財產的無形性的特性而生，與傳統的有形財產有迥然不同的性質，善加利用智慧財產權的特性，將可使企業擺脫傳統的營業模式，邁向新的獲利境界。建議企業應重新的審視自己所有的智慧資產，加以稽核與評估，結合本研究所提出的授權策略架構，重新思索企業的營運方向與智慧資產的利用是否完善，有效的提升企業的競爭地位，創造更多的經營優勢。

論文內容著重在以下三個重點: 試驗免責、延展性授權與延展性專利範圍、書面描述要件。首先是35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)之Safe Harbor 緣由、案例、Integra v. Merck 一案之過程與後續影響以及271(e)(1)的試驗免責與研究工具的關係, 最後提出建議應限縮試驗免責範圍, 以強制授權或是明定專利法中的試驗免責範圍緩和基礎研究專利範圍過大現象(第二、三章)。 研究工具專利開發者多所採用之延展性授權與延展性專利範圍無非是想多獲得利益, 而研究工具專利對於生物科技發展是相當重要的, 第四章先以四方角色(大藥廠、大學與非營利機構、小藥廠與政府單位)討論研究工具對於本身的利益考量, 並且因試驗免責範圍不明, 延展性授權契約已是普遍存在, 詳細地討論其存在的意義, 並且分析已探討延展性授權金/契約議題文章, 另外對於延展性專利保護範圍, 明確指出哪一些核准專利是延展性保護範圍, 雖然2001年的三方會議已經明確地限制此類專利的核准, 由於Rochester v. G.D. Searle一案, 法院認為Rochester 專利包含延展性保護範圍, 歸因於未揭露出清楚的書面描述要件, 於是進行第五章書面描述要件的討論。 進而較詳細地探討生物機轉的途徑特性、功能性敘述必要性以及書面描述上的困難, 然後進行相關案件探討, 提出自己對於專利文件之書面描述要件的看法, 希望能在生物類研究工具專利保護範圍與書面描述要件中取平衡, 適切地保護研究工具發明。最後並提出總結與建議。 / Over the last twenty years, the biotechnology industry has grown very rapidly, and increased our understanding of incurable diseases. Research tools are playing important role to form the core of the pharmaceutical research, development, and testing. Because this industry is so research tool intensive, numerous problems have arisen stemming from the competing interests of the many players in this field. From the legislative history, the Hatch-Waxman Act embodies the legislative compromise balancing the competing interests of the pioneer pharmaceutical and allied research-based products industries with those of the generic drug industry. And the section 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) statute provides a “safe harbor” from patent infringement based on activities that are reasonably related to obtaining FDA regulatory approval of drug products, but the plain language is fairly ambiguous. In Eli Lilly v. Medtronic, Supreme Court held the safe harbor extends to medical devices, despite the fact that § 271(e)(1) does not refer specifically to medical devices. Recently, for the case of Merck v. Integra, Federal Circuit announced that the term “solely” limits the safe harbor exemption from extending beyond uses of patented inventions that are reasonably related to those specified in § 271(e)(1). But Supreme Court rejected and held that § 271(e)(1) applies to uses of patented inventions that are reasonably related to the development and submission of any information to the FDA. The Court was silent on the potential applications and opened the questions of the safe harbor's application to patented research tools. These problems may be the reason that research tool providers attempt to request royalties such as reach-through royalties for covering the downstream compounds or products. They also try to file the patent application with the reach-through claim for claiming a future invention. However, the use of reach-through royalties is still controversial and causing a decrease in innovation. Patentees attempt to obtain reach-through claims for covering a future invention without actually describing in the written description. The Federal Circuit's holding in Rochester v. G.D. Searle that the Rochester's patents failed the written description requirement, and Rochester should curtail the use of reach-through claims. So far the USPTO has not been uniform in its application of written description requirement. We therefore propose a new test to determine whether, and under which circumstances, functional claiming may satisfy the written description requirement. One should not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification. The approach would provide sufficient incentive for pioneering inventions, preserve room for the future, and thus expect to promote progress and to advance the purposes of patent law.

著作肩負著人類對文化傳承、藝術發揚及知識分享的重責大任，影響深遠，自應創造因誘因加以鼓勵並給予適當的法律保障；惟現代著作權法保護創作人的思維均藉由「創作完成自動保護」的途徑，賦予創作人各種著作人格權及著作財產權，一改往昔仍須藉由註冊審查或登記列冊方能享有著作權的傳統作法。然而,任何偉大的著作,其價值乃貴在廣為利用方能源遠流傳，前述各類創作人是否分享或放棄著作權之意願，由法律自動保留全部權利（all rights reserved）的預設（default）立場，使得利用人在利用著作或接續創作的平台受到重重的限制，除了能符合較抽象的「合理使用」範疇以外，利用著作前均須依法取得權利人之同意或授權方能免除因此所生侵權責任。 對於一向主張著作應視為公共財的自由派學者，前述加諸廣大利用人動輒得咎的法律限制，顯然會認為對於知識分享擴散造成阻礙的結果無法忍受，於是美國史丹福大學Lawrence Lessig教授即於2002年間號召有識之士，倡導「Creative Commons」（本研究稱為「創作共享」）之運動，藉由「保留部分著作權」（some rights reserved）的理念，設計鬆綁著作權法以釋出著作權的機制，現正積極在世界各國間推廣中。 本研究即針對上述理念之興起，思考此一創新機制與知識分享擴散及著作權保護間有無相關，並試圖找出可能直接影響機制之關鍵因素提供建言。在第一章部分，除敍明研究動機、目的、範圍、限制外，更直指本研究之問題所在及預期之貢獻；第二章即針對研究主題，包括過去對著作權保護、創作共享機制、知識分享擴散及制度創新的研究進行文獻探討，第三章則對研究核心創作共享機制具體實踐之契約條款予以法律剖析檢驗，並釋疑部分易為外界混淆或誤解之觀念；第四章則詳細闡明研究方法後，設定各個命題及假設，並各賦予操作化定義，落實為問卷調查之問題及選項，第五章則以立意取向調查方式發放及回收共547份有效問卷，並以11.0版SPSS軟體執行問卷數據分析並進而出各項判讀，印證前述命題及假設相關程度，另從管理意涵賦予各項解讀之詮釋；第六章則藉由坊間已先後運行的四個類似創作共享機制的個案，將前述檢驗的內外因素、體質因素、驅動因素等研究構面逐一比較，第七章即就研究成果列出結論並提出後續研究之建議以供來者繼續接棒發揚。 / Creative work carries the responsibilities of cultural inheritance, artistic manifestation, and knowledge sharing; its influences are far reaching and the work ought to be encouraged and properly protected by law. In contrast to traditional copyright laws, whereby protection was given only after registration or examination, current copyright laws give protection to creative work upon its completion, and provide the creator with all kinds of moral integrity rights and copyrights. However, the value of a masterpiece lies in its widespread use, and the current legal system gives the creator, by default, all rights to reserve their intention to share or forfeit their copyrights. From the user’s standpoint, this protective system means limitations and restrictions in using creative work or in continuing creative platform—requiring the user to obtain agreement or license from the rights owner for any use of the work outside the scope of “fair use.” Liberal scholars who believe creative work ought to be public property find these legal restrictions on users and limitations on the proliferation of knowledge sharing intolerable. In 2002, under the appeal of Stanford’s Professor Lawrence Lessig, the movement for Creative Commons was begun. Under this model, relaxation of copyrights with some rights reserved is called for, and this idea is being widely promoted throughout the world. This study focuses on the development of this new ideology and examines its relationship with the proliferation of knowledge sharing and copyrights protection, and further inspects the key factors that may directly influence this new mechanism as well as provides necessary suggestions. Chapter One explains the motivation, purpose, scope, and limitation of this study as well as pointing out the problems and expectations of this study. Chapter Two focuses on the main theme of this study, including empirical studies on past copyright protections, creative commons mechanism, proliferation of knowledge sharing and innovation of its system. Chapter Three examines the legal aspects of the creative commons licensing agreement and clarifies the parts that are confusing or can be easily misunderstood. Chapter Four explains the research approach and sets up theories for each topic, and defines the procedures for selecting questions for the survey. Chapter Five analyzes the 547 valid surveys, which were distributed using the conceptual approach, using v.11.0 of SPSS against the topic and theories set forth in the previous chapter, and interpret each item in the survey via management connotation. Chapter Six compares four existing mechanisms similar to the creative commons model in terms internal and external factors, physical factors, and driving factors. Chapter Seven discusses the results of this study and states suggestions for subsequent research.

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".