我國智慧財產法院已於2008年7月1日正式成立並開始運作，專責審理智慧財產權案件，並透過將刑事、民事、行政訴訟合而為一的審理制度，解決昔日智慧財產案件冗長審理的弊病，具有維持同一見解、加速審判速度、以及增進效率等功效。在智慧財產法院開始運作及審理法實施即將屆滿一年之際，本論文彙整智慧財產法院近一年來所審結之專利相關案件的判決來回顧審理法實施前專家學者之學理見解以及審理法實施後智慧財產法院實務見解兩者間之差異性，並且針對審理法的幾項重要特色從立法沿革、學者專家見解、法院實務見解等層面進一步加以討論。 本碩士論文共分為九個章節，除第一章緒論及第九章討論與建議外，其他章節主要針對新型態的智慧財產案件爭訟處理制度加以討論，相關主題包括智慧財產法院的成立背景、過程及其定位（第二章）、智慧財產案件審理法的特色，例如管轄權之劃分、設置技術審查官協助法官之案件審理、秘密保持命令制度、民、刑事訴訟關於權利有效性抗辯處理程序、專責機關參加訴訟、加強審理效率化、定暫時狀態處分程序、行政訴訟中容許提出新證據以及遠距視訊審理（第三章）；並針對具有相當爭議性之制度規劃進行討論，例如：專屬管轄與非專屬管轄（第四章）、專利權有效性之抗辯（第五章）、技術審查官與專責機關之參加專利訴訟（第六章）、專利行政訴訟中容許新證據之提出（第七章）、以及定暫時狀態處分之變革（第八章）。

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.

長期以來，在我國法學欠缺研究法院專利裁判實務之情形下，本文從我國審判實務運作之實證面，將八十九年起至九十九年止，近十一年以來的全國各地方法院之第一審專利訴訟裁判予以全面量化、分析，藉由專利判決或裁定的統計資料呈現出我國專利訴訟之實務現況，包含各法院專利案件分布情形、當事人是否為外國籍、專利權類型、案件平均審理終結日數、原告勝敗訴比率、撤回率、和解及調解比率、裁定停止訴訟比率、鑑定比率等影響當事人權益的重要數據，藉此瞭解及驗證專利訴訟之本質與特徵，並指出法院因應之道。 又我國智慧財產法院在國人期盼下於九十七年七月成立，智慧財產案件審理法及智慧財產法院組織法亦在同日生效施行，經比較智慧財產法院成立前後之審判實務現況，應已大幅改善過去專利審判無效率、訴訟程序不當延宕之缺失，並展現出該有之裁判品質，然亦曝露出某些問題值得探討，特別是法院判決不利於專利權人之問題。 最後，本文以專利案件數量最多、質量最重的台北地方法院所終結的專利侵權判決為研究對象，解構專利侵權訴訟案件之類型，從法院審理的角度將訴訟上爭點予以類型化，區分為「程序問題」、「可專利性與有效性」、「申請專利權範圍之解釋」、「專利侵害認定及鑑定」、「不當行使專利權及其他事由」五種主要類型，再從上開五種主要類型細分成不同之次要類型。透過專利侵權判決類型化之結果，將有利於參與者觀察及瞭解法院審理專利案件之一貫脈絡及重心所在，且有助於集中審理，預防突襲性裁判之發生，以及增進專利裁判之一致性與可預測性，進而提昇專利之價值。

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.

我國於97年7月1日設立智慧財產法院，專責辦理智慧財產案件，智慧財產民事保全程序之假扣押、假處分及定暫時狀態處分亦包括在內，為瞭解智慧財產法院對於假扣押、假處分及定暫時狀態處分案件所採取之見解，本文蒐集智慧財產法院自97年7月1日設立後至103年4月30日止之假扣押、假處分及定暫時狀態處分裁定，將相關裁定之准許理由、駁回理由加以歸納分類，進行系統化之整理，依不同類型之權利如專利權、商標權、著作權等分類，予以統計分析，並提出問題與建議。

隨知識經濟發展，有關智慧財產權之管理與對因智慧財產權所衍生之訴訟紛爭因應之道，對企業越來越重要。因大企業多利用我國民事訴訟保全程序中假處分程序較提起本案訴訟所需支出之程序費用較低，取得定暫時狀態假處分之時間較本案訴訟耗費冗長之審理時間迅速，加上我國法律准許原告得提供擔保金代替聲請假處分需提出之事實與理由，導致大企業可挾雄厚財力於提請侵權訴訟之前，提供高額擔保金向法院聲請對競爭對手核發定暫時狀態假處分之裁定，故我國現行智財訴訟定暫時狀態假處分制度遭批評成為大企業用來對付新興中小企業競爭對手之手段。 有鑒於智慧財產案件與一般訴訟案件性質不同，著重承審法官須具備法律以外專門知識與技術知識，且因我國司法採取公私法二元化審判權區分，始同一智慧財產權紛爭案件可提起民事、刑事及行政訴訟程序，產生訴訟程序遲滯、裁判矛盾等問題，加上現行假處分制度有上述缺失。我國研擬智慧財產法院組織法、智慧財產案件審理法，並決定明年3月成立智慧財產專責法院，統一審理智慧財產案件，因此新制實行後能否徹底解決現行諸多缺失，亦係企業十分關心之議題。 隨台灣企業於國際間代工獲利增長、面板產業、資訊科技產業快速成長發展，外國擁有相關技術智慧財產權之大廠，紛紛對台灣企業於美國涉嫌侵權行為提起訴訟，獲取洽談授權金或和解金、賠償金之利益。因國外大廠於提起智慧財產侵權訴訟之際，均會依假處分規定，聲請法院下裁定禁止涉嫌侵權之企業繼續為生產、銷售及進口等行為，使台灣企業無法繼續生產商品銷售至美國，受有商機、商譽等重大損失。且台灣企業於美國侵權訴訟程序需耗費巨額訴訟費用及冗長之訴訟程序進行，台灣現行並無訴訟保險制度，無法將面臨智慧財產侵權訴訟須支出之費用藉由保險制度分散風險，故台灣企業面臨智慧財產權利人提起假處分或侵權訴訟時，應採取何種因應措施與訴訟策略，平時對其所有之智慧財產權應為如何管理，均係相當重要之議題。 ＊關鍵字：定暫時狀態假處分、擔保金、智慧財產法院、訴訟保險、智慧財產權管理、訴訟策略 / In today's knowledge-based economy, management of intellectual property rights is more important and litigation arising out of disputes about intellectual property rights is more than ever among transnational companies. In light of the lengthy procedure of litigation, companies often take advantage of the preliminary injunction system in Taiwan before filing a lawsuit, especially in cases of disputes about intellectual property rights. An applicant of a preliminary injunction is allowed to provide a security bond in lieu of explaining in detail the merit of its lawsuit and can obtain a preliminary injunction issued by the court within a relatively short period of time before the final judgment has been rendered. Consequently, the preliminary-injunction system has been criticized for its shortage in protecting the counterparty's legitimate interest. Because the current preliminary-injunction system has the above-mentioned disadvantages, and the litigation in connection with intellectual property rights differs from the ordinary litigation, i.e. the judges must have certain engineering or scientific knowledge in addition to the understanding of the legal system. Furthermore, our country adopts the "dual system" in terms of jurisdiction, i.e. there might be criminal, administrative, and civil litigations simultaneously arising out of the same intellectual-property disputes, which results in delay and contradictions among the judgments in relation to the same disputes. In view of the above, the Judicial Yuan drafts the "The Act for Establishing the Specialized Intellectual Property Court" and "The Code for Hearing Procedures Concerning Intellectual Property Disputes", and plans to launch the Specialized Intellectual Property Court by March 2007 to be in sole charge of the hearing of intellectual-property cases. Therefore, whether the new system adopted by the Judicial Yuan can resolve the aforementioned shortcoming is the major source of concern for the industries. Owing to the increase in the profits sustained by Taiwan companies when performing their OEM services, and the rapid growth of Taiwan's TFT-LCD and IT industries, foreign companies owning the intellectual property rights in relevant technologies in droves file lawsuits against Taiwan companies in the United States, in order to gain advantages when negotiating royalties or compensation with Taiwan companies. When foreign companies file lawsuits, it is a trend to also apply for preliminary injunction with the court to forbid the infringing companies continuing manufacturing, selling, or importing the products. Thus Taiwan companies cannot proceed to sell the products to the United States and incur huge losses in commercial opportunities and reputation. In addition, litigation in the United States will cost Taiwan companies notable expenditure, and make Taiwan companies endure lengthy procedures. Nonetheless, as currently there is no litigation insurance in Taiwan, Taiwan companies cannot shift the risks in disbursing the litigation expenditure by means of insurance. Accordingly, the management of intellectual property rights in "peacetime", and the measures and litigation strategy for the lawsuits or preliminary injunction filed/applied by the owner of the intellectual property rights, are crucial to Taiwan companies. ＊Keywords：Preliminary injunction、Security Bond、The Specialized Intellectual Property Court、Litigation insurance、the management of intellectual property、the strategy of litigation

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.