企業之興衰可概分為導入期、成長期、成熟期、衰退期。本研究發現，台灣地區保全業目前處於「成熟期」。隨著微利時代之來臨，保全之傳統服務業勢必將面臨極大之挑戰，若無長遠規劃及有效興革，日後將被跨國性大保全公司所併購之可能，最後從而步入「衰退期」。因此，保全業必須重視研發與管理，方能因應市場之快速變遷與挑戰。 由於社會大眾對保全業之運作缺乏正確觀念，總以為安排保全後即無須另行安排保險保障，因此時常有保障缺漏之產生。就現況而言，保全業者素質良莠不齊，常因業務競爭而忽視風險管理之重要性，且普遍未能落實損害防阻之工作，造成保全重大事故時有所聞，甚至引發社會各界之非難與抨擊。再者，法令要求保全業必須利用保險以分散風險。然而因為認知上之差距，時常發生理賠責任界定之糾紛，造成消費者不諒解、保險業不願繼續承保之困窘，影響保全業之形象與聲譽甚鉅。 本研究主要探討台灣地區保全業風險管理與保險之相關問題，架構上係以風險管理原理為基礎，輔以實務運作現況，以求有系統地分析保全業經營管理之相關風險，並藉此歸納保全業風險管理之核心原則。其次，本研究亦針對保全業運用產物保險（保全業責任保險、銀行業綜合保險、員工誠實信用保證保險）時所衍生紛爭，以案例研究方式解析其爭議所在，期能界定消費者、保全業、保險業三方之權利義務關係。最後，根據發現與結論，本研究提出若干建議供相關單位參考，期能全面提升保全業風險管理與保險運用之水平。 / In terms of the life cycle, an enterprise may experience the following stages: introduction stage, growth stage, maturity stage and decline stage. It is observed that the security industry in Taiwan is currently situated in the maturity stage. Due to severe market competition and narrow margin of profits, the security industry is forced to meet the magnificent challenge, locally or internationally. Without a long-term planning and efficient reform, it is likely to see many security companies merged by multi-national security companies in the future. Under such a scenario, the security industry in Taiwan will eventually step into the decline stage. Misunderstanding the operation of security industry, many people ignore the necessity of insurance coverage after security protection is arranged. It leads to the leakage in protection and coverage. In practice, many security companies also take less care of risk management and loss prevention due to business competition. In addition, a security company is required to transfer its risks through insurance. Because of the perceptional gap, many claim disputes arise among the security industry, the insurance industry and the clients. Under such circumstances, all of the above have deteriorated the reputation of security industry and result in many criticisms from the general public. The main theme of this research is to explore the issues related to risk management and insurance of the security industry in Taiwan. Based on the fundamental theories of risk management and market practices, the relevant risks are systematically analyzed and core risk management principles for the industry are developed. In addition, it undertakes several case studies to examine the controversial issues of certain insurance products often associated with the security business. It is hoped to clarify these issues and define the rights and obligations among different players. In the final part, the conclusion and recommendation is submitted to relevant institutions to upgrade and enhance the risk management and insurance arrangement of the security industry.

再保險之目的，在於提供保險人保險保障。其方式乃再保險人就原保險人在原保險契約中所負之給付責任，予以部份或全部的補償。再保險契約就再保險人之再保險給付責任所為之約定，最常見者為「同一命運原則」之約定。依「同一命運條款」之字面解釋，此條款係指再保險人須與原保險人「同一命運」，於原保險人對被保險人為保險給付後，補償原保險人因對被保險人為保險給付所生之損害。 依據損害補償原則，須保險人之保險給付在保險契約及再保險契約之承保範圍內，再保險人始負再保險給付之責任。為了避免嚴格依據損害補償原則解釋再保險人之責任，造成保險人無法取得再保險保障之結果，並提高對於保險人之保障，再保險契約雙方乃藉由同一命運條款的相關約定，約定保險人只須證明其已向被保險人為補償給付且其給付係依「誠信」所為，再保險人即須同其命運，向保險人為補償給付。再保險人此一契約義務，乃再保險契約雙方當事人基於契約自由，於再保險契約中特別加入同一命運條款的結果。 保險人之「誠信」乃同一命運原則適用之基石，此為法院所共同肯認。然而，對於同一命運原則於個案中之具體適用，法院之看法似乎並無足夠的一致性。究竟，決定再保險契約雙方當事人權利義務的同一命運原則，法院如何解釋其適用上發生之爭議？又，法院對於抽象的誠信原則如何解釋？在同一命運原則的背景下，再保險人是否可以提出何種抗辯以免除其保險給付責任？最後，是否這些問題的解答可以有某程度的預測可能性，以供日後再保險契約雙方草擬同一命運條款之參考？ 針對保險人對被保險人所應為之補償，再保險人與原保險人可能有不同解釋，前者認為再保險人與保險人同一命運之範圍，應以原保險及再保險約定之範圍為限；後者則認為凡保險人所給付與被保險人者，再保險人皆須與其同一命運，負擔給付責任。縱使再保險契約雙方皆主張其以再保險契約之約定為給付責任範圍之界定基礎，然基於利益彼此對立之立場，雙方對於「契約約定」往往有不同詮釋。再保險契約雙方間之爭議，實務上常見者如，原保險人對被保險人所給付之通融賠款（Ex-gratia payment）、懲罰性賠償（Punitive damages）等，是否屬於再保險人與保險人同一命運之範圍？將此類爭議一般化，須探究者為，同一命運條款何種程度限制了再保險人對原保險人之給付表示異議的權利？ 另外，倘若再保險契約中沒有同一命運條款的約定，是否可認為此條款為再保險契約所「默示」（Implied）？此問題涉及同一命運原則的歷史背景，與再保險市場的運作實務息息相關，對於契約的解釋方法也有重要啟示。 同一命運原則為再保險交易發展史上，最常受到爭議的問題之一。現今之再保險交易環境已然愈趨複雜，不僅是所保危險之價額日趨提高，投入再保險交易之保險人數增加且交易類型複雜化，皆使得再保險交易雙方之風險分配及責任分擔，不再可以全然依賴保險人對於誠信原則之遵守。反之，應同時強調再保險與保險之不同，亦即，前者係由專業之保險人為交易雙方而進行之交易，故再保險人應可依其專業，對所保危險主動向保險人提出詢問，此亦顯示了保險人及再保險人間彼此合作愈趨重要，為再保險人負擔再保險給付責任之正當性基礎。本文嘗試處理以上提出的爭議問題，並對可能之解決提出建議。 / The reinsurance loss settlement clause, which appears in a variety of forms of wordings, historically has been one of the most difficult aspects of reinsurance law and practice. In recent days, more and more litigation has arisen as a result of such clauses. This study centers upon the interesting and oftentimes confusing issue of the scope and effect of such clauses, and how they define both the reinsured’s and the reinsurers’ liability. The purpose of reinsurance is to provide insurance protection by the reinsurer for the reinsured, namely, the insurer. At the beginning of reinsurance history when there were only a small number of insurers operating in the insurance market, insurers were fairly familiar with one another, and that resulted in a minimum of formality in doing business. In terms of reinsurance, reinsurers, when asked to pay by their reinsured, normally did not go out of their way to initiate a de novo review or assessment of the risk insured. The main reasons for such practice were, for one, insurers were so familiar with their business partners that they did not see the need for such re-assessment of the risk, and for another, in the past, the nature of the risks insured was not as complicated as those we are faced with nowadays. With a view to enhancing business efficiency and providing better protection for insurers, the parties that engaged in a reinsurance agreement oftentimes would insert into the agreement a “follow the fortunes” or “follow the settlements” clause. Such clauses bound the reinsurers to follow the fortunes/settlements of their reinsured without the reinsured’s liability having been proved, and restrained the reinsurers from refusing to indemnify the reinsured on the ground that liability did not exist under the original policy, provided that the reinsured had acted in a bona fide and businesslike way. In a word, the existence of the loss settlement clause was a logical consequence of the purpose of reinsurance, and the reinsurers’ obligation under such clauses was conditioned on the reinsured’s good faith. Reinsurance loss settlement clauses have been interpreted by the court rather favorably for the reinsured. Courts would normally find coverage for the reinsured, once they decided that the reinsured had acted in good faith in settling with the insured, even if they held that the reinsured had not been legally liable. This fact highlights the importance of the reinsured’s duty of utmost good faith in reinsurance law and practice. However, what exactly is good faith, and what are the reinsured’s obligations under the good faith requirement? Is there a general rule that the courts have developed to justify their finding of the reinsured’s good faith? If good faith, being abstract in itself and susceptible to courts’ subjective discretion, serves as the “standard” to evaluate or define the liability of the parties to a reinsurance agreement, how does it usually function? Does it at times seem so abstract and variable that the reinsurance agreement parties have a hard time predicting their liability under such a standard? Also, in this study, the questions of the implication of loss settlement clauses and the scope or effect of such clauses are explored. The former question asks, where the reinsurance contracts do not contain any “follow the fortunes or settlements” provisions, does the law, custom or practice read into the contracts any obligation on the reinsurer to follow its reinsured’s fortunes or settlements? This question is important in that it deals with the applicability of loss settlement clauses, and thus has a fundamental impact on how reinsurance contracts are interpreted. The latter question aims at clarifying how loss settlement clauses are applied to pertinent areas such as ex gratia payments, punitive damages, reinsurers’ liability caps, payments related to the Wellington Agreement and claims cooperation clauses. Specific examples are given here in order to better understand how loss settlements clauses are put to practical use. Discussion concerned with this question also demonstrates how a loosely worded loss settlement clause could give rise to disputes between the parties. To better define the parties’ rights and obligations under a reinsurance agreement, a more detailed review of how the reinsurance environment as a whole is functioning and how the courts interpret reinsurance loss settlement clauses is required. This issue will be even more worth pondering now that we are seeing a more complex reinsurance market where the parties’ interests are potentially conflicting, which is per se a challenge to the general view that the reinsurers should follow the fortunes or settlements of the reinsured.

本文旨在探討專利侵權損害賠償請求之範圍及賠償數額之計算方法，以我國法律規定及實務運作情形為主，並比較美國、中國大陸的規定及實務運作情形，尤其智慧財產法院自97年7月1日成立後，其在損害賠償方面之實務見解是否比過去數十年的實務運作有更創新之看法，茲為我國將來專利法修法之參考，並與實務運作相互印證。第一章緒論，說明研究背景與動機，研究目的、研究方法及流程。第二章說明專利權之定義、種類，專利侵害之類型，專利鑑定、步驟、原則及我國的專利損害賠償制度。第三章則專以損害賠償額計算之規定及實務判決研究為主，並兼論及非財產上損害，如信譽損害、律師及其他費用等。第四章比較TRIPS、中國大陸及美國之規定，尤其以美國法及判決為重點，討論我國是否應如美國一樣，增訂合理權利金之條款，又合理權利金之達成是否應在兩造自由意願下簽訂，而不能受到訴訟之威脅。第五章以過去一年來最新成立智慧財產法院判決分析比較，分析是否與之前的實務判決有不同之作法及是否已大幅改善之前實務的缺點，提出個人看法。最後一章則提出本文建議的解決方案或可供臺灣專利法修正草案之參考。 透過本文將可瞭解過去各地方法院關於專利侵權之判決、美國實務判決之立論基礎，並與智慧財產法院成立後之最新出爐判決相互比較，以資作為將來修正專利法之參考建議，並期許智慧財產法院將來在專利侵權訴訟更能保障專利權人之權利，使專利權人獲得應有之賠償，願意投入更多的資金及研發人員，創造有價值的專利，以促進科技發展，造福人類。 關鍵字：專利侵權、智慧財產、損害賠償、所失利益、合理權利金、智慧財產法院 / This study aims to explore the ambit of the patent infringement compensation and the method to calculate the damages award for the patent infringement. This thesis focuses on Taiwan’s patent law and judicial practice, compared to the regulations and practices of TRIPS , the United States, and the mainland China. Besides, with the establishment of the Intellectual Property Court since July 1, 2008 in Taiwan, did this new Taiwan Intellectual Property Court have made more innovative decisions than the past few decades ? Chapter I is the introduction of this study’s background and motivation, research purpose, research methodology and process. Chapter II refers to the definition of the patent right, types of the patent infringement, steps & principles of the patent infringement identification, and our country's patent infringement relief system. Chapter III is dedicated to the calculation of the damages award in the amount based on the provisions and court’s decision, and to deal with non-property damages, such as the reputation damages, legal fees and other costs. Chapter IV compares the regulations and practices of the TRIPS, the United States and the mainland China, in particular the United States court’s decisions.Whether our patent law should adopt the theory of reasonable royalty, as the law or judicial enforcement in the United States? Should a reasonable royalty be based on two parties under the free wills but not by the threat of litigations.Chapter V analyzes the outcomes of the Intellectual Property Court’s rulings in the past one year. Are their rulings different from the past practices? Whether they can greatly avoid the criticisms of the prior practice;Also, I will advance my personal view in this chapter. The final chapter of this thesis will put forward the proposals for the amendment to the Patent Law in Taiwan in the future.This thesis hopes to make you have a basic understanding of the past practices of the district court rulings in Taiwan, the comparisons of the practical theories in the United States, and the latest court rulings released by the Intellectual Property Court, for future reference of the amendment to the patent law.And hope that the Intellectual Property Court could even more protect the rights of patent holders in the future, so that the inventors may obtain adequate compensation, therefore they will be willing to invest more capital in R & D to create more valuable patents for the benefit of the people. Key words: patent infringement, intellectual property, compensatory damages, lost profits, reasonable royalty, Intellectual Property Court.

No description available.

本研究探討損害賠償計算方法理論對請求金額與判賠金額間差距幅度之影響。本研究以請求金額與判賠金額的差距幅度作為應變數，以三大損害賠償計算方法作為解釋變數，並設定三大群組變數作為控制變數。本研究之樣本為智財法院所審理之專利侵權求償判決，樣本期間為2008年9月至2010年9月。 本研究所建立之回歸模型解釋該差距幅度的變異量達45.1%。實證結果顯示，我國專利侵權損害賠償訴訟之差距幅度，顯著地受到總利益說及總銷售額說之兩種損害賠償計算方法的影響，但受合理權利金說之影響並不顯著。該等實證結果指出，總利益說的採用對於縮短請求差距幅度的影響能力，優於總銷售額說，代表著專利權人於訴訟中應詳盡地提出損害賠償相關事證，以獲得較高的賠償救濟。 / This research explores the association of the patent-damage calculation theories with the Variance between the amount of damage claimed and that awarded. Specifically, it tests the relationship between the Variance and three explanatory variables, namely, patent-damage calculation theories based on the profit, sales, and reasonable royalty, along with control variables including the case specifics, patents-at-issue, and litigants information. Its sample includes 186 patent infringement cases decided in Taiwan Intellectual Property Court from 2008/9 to 2010/9. The empirical regression model explains 45.1% of the variation in the Variance. The results show significance associations of the Variance with the profit approach and the sales approach, but not with the reasonable royalty approach. Such findings point out that the profit approach is more successful at reducing the Variance, implying that the patentee should present more detailed evidence during litigation to get more awards.

第一章緒論，旨在解明本論文之研究動機及論文架構。 第二章舉證責任分配體系與損害賠償數額之確定，旨在解明舉證責任分配之概念、舉證責任分配法則、舉證責任分配原則之體系建構，並在本章當中，將說明「損害賠償數額之確定」此一舉證責任減輕機制於舉證責任分配體系中之體系定位。 第三章損害賠償數額之確定之立法旨趣，旨在解明我國民事訴訟法第二二二條第二項之立法旨趣，本文將先就外國法之相關規定及其立法旨趣加以解明，次針對民國八十九年所制訂民事訴訟法第二二二條第二項之立法旨趣從立法資料、學理上、實務上之看法加以解明其立法旨趣之所在。 第四章損害賠償數額之確定之適用範圍，旨在解明此一制度的適用範圍，針對因果關係、損害賠償請求權、損害賠償請求權之包括或(及)一律請求、與有過失等是否有此一制度之適用，將於本章加以解明。此外，針對學理上所提出之可能類推適用此一制度之事項，本章亦將一併予以討論說明。 第五章損害賠償數額之確定之構成要件，本章將先就法條之構成要件與德國法上之差異處加以解明，次就民事訴訟法第二二二條第二項之法文構成要件加以說明，末針對相關聯之制度亦一併於本章加以檢討分析。 第六章損害賠償數額之確定之法律效果，本章將就學理上所提出之證明度降低說、衡平裁量說、折衷說等三說加以說明分析，並對於我國實務上之看法整理分析。 第七章回顧與展望，係本論文對於損害賠償數額之確定此一制度所提出看法之整體性回顧，以俾讀者迅速地掌握本文對於損害賠償數額之確定之法理論、要件論、效果論之看法。

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(法学) / 甲第21514号 / 法博第231号 / 新制||法||165(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院法学研究科法政理論専攻 / (主査)教授 愛知 靖之, 教授 川濵 昇, 教授 吉政 知広 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Laws / Kyoto University / DGAM

近年來，病人自主權意識高漲，醫療糾紛頻傳，每個醫師無不戒慎恐懼，而醫療爭議之處理模式與醫師專門職業之道德責任都受到社會高度的檢視及廣泛的討論。事實上，醫學的進步需要依賴不斷地創新與大膽地試驗研究，因此人體試驗相關的問題也受到大眾的關注。 由於人體試驗所面對的是複雜而變化多端的情境，所以參與人體試驗之受試者將會面對甚而遭到危險或傷害。我國人體試驗的相關法規，多散置於醫療法、醫師法、藥事法、藥品優良臨床試驗準則、藥品優良臨床試驗規範等，除了無整體之法規範外，且多為行政法令，在法律位階上均較低，加上衛生署主管機關無法落實對試驗過程中之管理與監控，因此參與人體試驗之受試者往往會受到損害而無法得到應有的保障。因為人體試驗的特殊性與常規醫療是不同的，如果僅由既有的傳統醫療糾紛處理方式，如醫療契約於受試者的關係、侵權行為於違反保護他人法律的標準、醫療倫理不傷害原則於人體試驗規範等，這些恐怕都是必須的，但是仍嫌不足。 本文參考國外人體試驗規範包括紐倫堡法則、赫爾辛基宣言、美國貝爾蒙特報告、美國聯邦法規、CIOMS國際生物醫學研究人體試驗倫理準則、國際醫藥法規協和會之優良人體臨床試驗準則等等，然後針對個別議題如受試者保護之告知後同意，受試者權益之醫療契約關係及侵權行為責任，受試者受傷害之損害賠償責任，作一整理分析與檢討，並進一步配合我國現行法律制度與社會倫理規範做出建議。 本文共分為七章，分別為「序論」、「人體試驗」、「人體試驗告知後同意法則」、「國外人體試驗之民事責任」、「我國人體試驗之民事責任」、「人體試驗之賠償責任及機制」及「結論」。 / In recent years, patients’ consciousness of self-determination has raised and many medical disputes occurred; doctors feel discomfort and developed the high intensity of self-defense. The solution of medical malpractice and professional liability of doctors have became the major public issues and received many discussions. We are quite sure that the medical progress is based on innovative and intensive clinical study on human subjects. Under this background, the topics on human subject research have been attracted more attention than ever. Since the situations in human research are complex and variable. If relative clinical standards and legal protections are not adequately provided, the human subjects involved in clinical researches may face many risks and even injured. In Taiwan, we don’t have a systemic regulations on human subject research, all regulations are distributed in different code, act, proceeding, and agreement. Furthermore, the government does not have enough resource and manpower to monitor or inspect the processes of human research, the issues of protection of human rights and benefits of testee has raised serious concern. The human subject research is not exactly the same as the clinical medical treatment, it’s impossible for legislators or institutions to regulate research through traditional medical regulations such as medical ethics doctor-involved informed consent, medical agreement (contract), tort laws, and compensation for injury. In this thesis, firstly, I reviewed the most important publications related to human subject research include Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, USA’s Belmont Report and Code of Federal Regulations, CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, and ICH-GCP; secondly, focus on each specific topics especially the value of informed consent, the importance of medical agreement, the liabilities of torts and the policy of compensation for injury. Finally, I’ll make my comments and suggestions to the health care authorities to update and implement new regulating policies to protect human rights of subjects involved in clinical researches. My thesis is restricted to discuss the impact of civil liability on human subjects research focus on drug clinical trial and divided into seven chapters as follows: “Introduction”, “Human subject research”, “Principles of informed consent”, “International liability of civil law on human subject research”, “Liability of Taiwan civil law on human subject research”, “Policy of compensation for injured human research subject” and “Conclusion”.

懲罰性賠償金係透過課予加害人超出被害人損害之賠償，達成制裁加害人，並嚇阻加害人以及其他行為人從事相類行為。該制度係源自於英國，並自英國傳遞自美國，並於美國廣泛盛行。懲罰性賠償金制度具有懲罰、嚇阻、設立典範之功能、執行法律等功能，惟其係私法下之概念，卻帶有懲罰目的之公法性質，跨越兩種領域使其極具爭議性。 消費者保護法第51條將英美法之懲罰性賠償金制度引進，致使我國民刑分立之法體系產生模糊地帶。關於我國實務對於懲罰性賠償金之態度，得以自其就消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋觀察。然實務就要件之解釋未盡統一，如此將導致當事人無所適從。 2015年6月17日修正之消費者保護法第51條，明確將「重大過失」納入規定，顯見立法者對於企業經營者採取更為嚴格之態度。如此修正固解決長久以來「過失」是否應限縮於「重大過失」之爭議，惟關於消費者保護法第51條其他要件之解釋，仍有尚未解決之問題。 觀諸消費者保護法第51條之要件，「依本法所提之訴訟」於「本法」及「訴訟」即存在寬嚴不同之解釋。另關於該條文之責任主體，企業經營者是否就其受僱人之懲罰性賠償金責任負責，又企業經營者間之責任關係為何，皆有釐清之必要。請求權主體之部分，消費者保護法第7條規定之「第三人」並未出現於第51條懲罰性賠償金之規定中，產生消費者以外之「第三人」是否為請求權主體之爭議。另外，被害人死亡時懲罰性賠償金之歸屬，亦為立法者制定該條文規定時，未審慎思考致生之法律漏洞。究竟被害人死亡時，應由間接被害人抑或繼承人請求懲罰性賠償金，無論如何結論之擇採，皆有賴縝密之法律邏輯推演。最後於懲罰性賠償金之計算，2015年6月17日明確懲罰輕過失行為以及提高倍數上限之修正，其妥適性為何；又消費者保護法第51條規定之計算基礎「損害額」之意義、計算時酌定之因素、與有過失之考量等，皆有待解決。本文以整理消費者保護法第51條懲罰性賠償金適用上之爭議，並嘗試透過學說及實務見解之分析歸納出合理之結論，並就結論之推演，參考部分日本法學說，期能對於消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋提供另一種思考方向。 / Punitive damages are extra monetary burdens which make the offender to pay more than those the injured has lost, in order to deter the offender and other offenders from behaving the same. The doctrine of punitive damages is originated from England and swept America. Punitive damages have the functions of punishment, deterrence, setting examples to the society, law enforcement and so on. However, it is controversial that the doctrine of punitive damages is the concept under civil law, but with the function of punishment, which makes the doctrine in the borderland between public and private law. Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act is the doctrine of punitive damages in Taiwan, which causes a gray area among the separation of civil law and criminal law, and makes Art. 51 controversial. It is not difficult to know the attitude of the judges toward punitive damages by understanding the explanation of Art. 51. But there is no consistency in the explanation of each element of Art. 51, which makes the Article bewildering. On June 17, 2015, gross negligence has been added to the amended Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, which shows the strict attitude of the legislators toward the business operators. This amendment solves the problem that whether negligence should be limited to gross negligence or not, but there still are other issues about Art. 51 Which should be solved. Among Art. 51, “this law” and “litigation” in the element of “in a litigation brought in accordance with this law” are explained in both strict and easing ways. About the subject of the legal responsibility of Art. 51, whether the business operators should be responsible for the act of their employees, and whether business operators should be jointly and severally liable for punitive damages are issues should be discussed. About the claimers of Art. 51, comparing Art. 7 to Art. 51, we can find that “third party” isn’t showed in Art. 51, which brings up to the issue that whether third party other than consumer can claim for punitive damages. Also, who can claim for punitive damages when the victim dies is an important issue. The legislators did not think of this kind of situation, which caused legislation imperfection among Art. 51. Whether the indirect victim or the successor should be the claimer of punitive damages in this kind of situation should be explained carefully and logically. Last but not least, in related to the calculation of punitive damages, the amendment of Art. 51 in June, 17, 2015 specifies that objective negligence and subjective negligence should be punished and the maximum limit on the amount of damages has been raised. Whether the amendment is proper or not, and whether “the amount of damages” should be confined to “property damages” should be clarified. It is also necessary to figure out the considerations of determination of the amount. Whether comparative negligence should be considered while deciding the amount of punitive damages is also controversial, which should be investigated prudently. This thesis will focus on Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act and the issues about it. This thesis will analyze those issues according to the theories and opinions of practice in Taiwan. American theories and Japanese theories will also be discussed in this thesis in order to solve the problems, and to provide a different view of Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act.

懲罰性賠償金為英美法傳統下之制度，其目的在於以超越實際損害數額之賠償金，制裁主觀惡性程度特別重大之侵權人，與一般用以填補損害之補償性賠償金有本質上之差異。昔日多適用於被害人尊嚴遭嚴重侵犯之案件，然隨現代經濟社會之發展，亦漸用於處罰公司法人、制裁經濟犯罪。 我國侵權行為法主要繼受德國之體系，以損害填補為原則，故僅於特定領域之立法中承認懲罰性賠償金制度。現行專利法採取懲罰性賠償金之立法例，而目前經濟部之修法草案則擬廢除。 本研究首先介紹美國法發展趨勢、實務重要案例與晚近之專利改革法案，歸納其趨勢為「嚴格限制故意侵權之構成、提高專利權人舉證責任、限縮懲罰性賠償金之適用範圍」；其次，以實證方式分析台灣智慧財產法院歷年相關之判決結果，認為實務運作有「大多數請求懲罰性賠償金之案例，連侵權責任都尚未構成，有請求浮濫、逼迫被告和解之嫌」、「法院認定侵權人故意，實質上往往僅論及侵權人『知悉系爭專利存在』即可，相較於現行法標準實過於寬鬆」；最後，綜合美國法發展趨勢、我國實務情形、懲罰性賠償金功能論與法律經濟分析觀點，認為我國尚不宜廢除專利侵權懲罰性賠償金制度，惟應將其限縮適用於「搭便車」與「專利有效性毋需再確認」之故意侵權情形，以降低社會研發成本、賦與從事研發者挑戰垃圾專利之機會，方切合專利法促進研發之本旨。 / Punitive damages, a traditional system under the common law, aims to sanction those infringers having substantially subjective malice by awarding enhanced damages beyond the actual damages. It is naturally different from compensatory damages. Punitive damages were originally used to dealing with serious violations of the victims’ dignity of the cases. With the development of economic society, this system was gradually used to punishing corporations and sanctioning economic crimes. Since Taiwanese tort laws are mainly inherited from German laws, which only permit plaintiffs claiming for compensatory damages. Punitive damages were only adopted in several specific kinds of tort laws, as in the patent law. However, the provision of punitive damages was revoked in the current patent reform act drafted by Ministry of Economic Affairs. This study starts out by introducing the trend of American law, the essential practical cases, and the recent patent reform acts. It concludes the trend to have the following three characteristics: 1. Strictly limit the constitution of willful infringement; 2. Increase patentee’s burden of proof; and 3. Restrict the scope of awarding punitive damages. The study then empirically analyzes the related judgments of Taiwan Intellectual Property Count over the years. It finds that in majority of the cases claiming punitive damages, most plaintiffs can even not to prove that defendants have infringed their patents, yet force defendants to settle. Also, the court in Taiwan usually award patentees punitive damages loosely only if they can prove that infringers had known the existence of the patent . This phenomenon makes the standard in practice not strict as the standard in law. Lastly, this study sums up the aspects from the development trend of American patent law, current practice in Taiwan, the theory of punitive damages function, and economic analysis of law, and finds that it would be inappropriate to revoke the provision of punitive damages in patent infringement cases. This study suggests that punitive damages should be awarded only in two types of willful infringement: 1. when the defendant is a “free rider, or 2. when the validity of the patent need not be challenged anymore. This way, it may lower the cost of research and development, give developers more chance to challenge junk patents, and finally reach the purpose of patent law – encourage innovation.