中國大陸從民主國家引進「聽證會」制度，是一種「有組織、有結構」的表達機制。要瞭解中國「聽證會」制度的全貌與意涵，首先掌握民主國家聽證理論，並在「民主政治」、「自然正義」、「正當法律程序」及「公開與公民參與」等立論原則，來加以探索民主國家對聽證之成因與面貌。另在文獻蒐集與探討中，從1993年至今，完整編織中國「聽證會」的發展背景動機和歷史演變，透過聽證理論與「聽證會」發展之比對分析，藉以說明中國與民主國家在「聽證」觀點上之差異。 在現行中國聽證會制度之法制規範上，從「聽證會」在中國大陸司法、行政立法過程之相關會議資料，和中央、地方近年來之施行情形，探求其制度正處於何種地位，瞭解中國「聽證會」之地位後，陸續歸納中國憲法內相關對聽證的立憲基礎，還有全國人大、全國人大常委會、國務院及地方等行政立法機關，在司法、行政立法聽證的法律規章之聽證法源依據，進而分析聽證在大陸的適法範圍及功能。另由司法賠償、行政立法及行政處罰之聽證個案實例，進一步深層瞭解「聽證會」實際操作面向。 文內採用文獻探討法，就已蒐集中國大陸司法、行政立法聽證之意涵、種類、政策基礎、規範原則、運作程序等百篇文獻，對與主題有關的縱向因素之因果關係加以整理、掌握，並藉以分析聽證之本質內涵，在透由探討與發現問題，將有系統對中國聽證會在司法聽證、行政立法聽證及民主政治等方面的問題影響加以整理說明。最後提出結論與建議，以提供問題解決方向。 / Communist China adopts the hearing system, a well organized and structured expression mechanism, from the western democracies in 1993. With this background, understanding the hearing theories of the western democracies becomes the prerequisite to study the full context and implications of China’s hearing system. Those who are interested in the creation of the western hearing system must realize that the system is based on theories such as democracy, natural justice, due process of law, and public civil participation. With thorough researches of documents and analyses, the motivation and history of China’s hearing system shall be studied and the differences between China and the western democracies shall be analyzed by comparing the theories and evolution of the two hearing systems. In order to identify with the role of China’s current hearing system, related materials collected from several important meetings carried out by China’s judicial and administrative-legislative authorities, as well as implementation of hearing at the central and local levels are investigated. When this investigation is concluded, how hearing system functions within the scope of China’s constitution will be induced. Furthermore, how hearings are functioned and supported by China’s existing laws when they are performed at National People Congress (NPC), NPC’s Standing Committee, State Council and local authorities will also be examined. Case studies of hearings regarding to judicial compensation, administrative-legislative and administrative penalties are provided to further help understand the real performance of the hearing activities in China. The literature review methodology is taken on in this thesis . Over one hundred periodicals, papers, and documents on the subject of hearing are collected and studied. These materials include the definition, types, principles, norms and procedures of China’s judicial and administrative-legislative hearings. By studying the literature and identifying the cause and effect, a systematic explanation of the correlation between China’s judicial and administrative-legislative hearing structure and democracy is concluded and possible solutions are recommended.

自1980年以來，台灣企業逐漸於國際商業競爭上嶄露頭角的同時，也開始面臨智慧財產保護課題。 2003年3月，聯發科為全球獲利最高的IC設計公司，美商DVD播放機控制晶片供應商ESS正向系統客戶送樣（預計4月開始出貨），以增加客戶採用之可能性的同時，在美國北加州聯邦法院向聯發科提起專利侵權訴訟，禁止聯發科使用DVDPlayer單晶片（SoC）播放機銷往美國；6月初，傳出ESS與聯發科達成和解，金額從數千萬美元到1億美元，消息傳出，聯發科股價一度下滑近10%，市場與法人同步傳出聯發科將面臨官司敗訴，需賠償1億美元，據悉聯發科高層對消息提前曝光相當震怒，傳出對消息外露人員處以解職。6月中，聯發科宣布與美商ESS簽訂技術授權合約，未來2年內，聯發科將支付9,000萬美元的權利金。 2004年3月，美商Zoran向美國國際貿易委員會（ITC）控告，聯發科侵犯CD/DVD控制器設計架構，以及直接連結IDE/ATA資料埠的主端界面控制器等相關三項專利權，隨後又向美國洛杉磯地方法院提起專利侵權訴訟，除請求賠償金以外，亦要求美國法院發出禁制令，命令聯發科之侵權相關產品不得輸往美國；聯發科則回應，因尚未收到任何正式文件，委由美國律師了解，俟收到正式文件後再對外說明；同年7月，聯發科也在美國德拉瓦聯邦地方法院對Zoran提起專利侵權訴訟，2005年9月ITC判定聯發科敗訴，市場傳聞聯發科已提列準備金8億元；2006年1月，雙方達成和解，聯發科支付8,500萬美元權利金給Zoran，侵蝕聯發科該年獲利約10％。 而跨國專利侵權訴訟有別於傳統訴訟的特殊性在於(1)跨國性：涉及於不同國家企業、不同國之涉訟地、不同國之市場與生產。因在跨國企業之布局運籌下，訴訟地必定尋求最有影響力之地點，通常為美國及中國，案例中由於ESS及Zoran均為美商，因此在美國提起對聯發科之訴訟；(2)計畫性：為達成商業目的而規劃之訴訟，案例中，ESS對聯發科基於競爭關係而提出訴訟，目的在於增加訂單、減少競爭；Zoran對聯發科則基於增加營收之目的，要求侵權損害賠償，作為過去一年之營運虧損。換言之，為自己或客戶增加營收及訂單、減少競爭，為其訴訟計畫之最終目的；(3)規模性：為了增加影響力與壓力，往往在許多國家同時提起，對象從侵權者擴及其下游客戶，攻擊點既廣且深；(4)繼續性：訴訟期間，影響客戶對其之信任及訴訟管理能力形象；案例中，聯發科雖有傲人之獲利能力，然而在與ESS一案中，卻顯出訴訟管理能力之薄弱，導致Zoran效而尤之，此形象一旦形成，勢必將為聯發科帶來更多不必要之侵權訴訟紛爭；(5)組織性：將訴訟工具與企業組織做連結，融入組織文化以全面改善，並由此發展一套標準作業流程，案例中Zoran習慣性地在提起訴訟前，先於市場發放消息，造成市場恐慌以形成其客戶之壓力，並使該壓力轉嫁至侵權對象，使其容易屈服；(6)資源性：跨國專利侵權訴訟必須具備以下基本要件，「錢多」因需支付龐大之訴訟費、律師費、專家費、賠償金及權利金、並有能力迴避設計及改變模具，並需有喪失市場及流失營收之心理準備。「人多」因訴訟之故，需具備詳盡之專利資料庫建立、調查產業/技術/產品/競爭者分析等資料為因應，並有訴訟規劃人員、應訴人員、支援人員等龐大後勤單位。「命長」因企業必須有能力支撐營運，不致在訴訟過程之謠言紛擾中倒下，案例中，均有市場傳言紛擾之問題，足以說明。 自1980年以來，台灣廠商歷經歐洲、美國、日本等大廠商之專利侵權訴訟逼迫下，付出了昂貴的代價，因此開始投入鉅額資金為研發、申請專利，近十年來台灣企業在美國、台灣、中國所申請的專利申請費用便高達了一千九百多億台幣，加上遭受了至少一百多件跨國專利訴訟的訴訟費用，便高達兩千億之多，尚不包括每年支付的權利金也高達台幣一千五百多億台幣，足以養活台積電兩萬名員工及影響四十七萬名股東生活長達兩年之久，足見台灣廠商在研發及專利申請方面之投入程度及所花費心血之鉅。 然而，審視台灣企業近十年在專利侵權訴訟方面之表現，發現：（1）每年均有影響台灣產業發展的專利侵權訴訟發生；（2）遍及每個產業；（3）以被告居多；（4）和解的以付出鉅額權利金居多；（5）打完訴訟的以敗訴居多。 由此可見，台灣企業付出昂貴的研發費用、專利申請費用之後，並沒有改善台灣企業年年被告、年年支付鉅額權利金、損害賠償金的宿命，在高度的付出之下，卻沒有改善在國際研發方面的地位，顯然付出與獲得顯不成比例。 智慧財產的創造、保護、管理，其中的費用包括研發費用、專利申請費用、訴訟費用、權利金及損害賠償等，美國企業是在研發、專利申請支出了龐大的費用，然而可以在訴訟費用、權利金及損害賠償中賺回來，亦即至少符合投資報酬率，然而，反觀台灣企業，不但在研發、專利申請時支出了龐大的費用，在訴訟費用及權利金、損害賠償方面，不但沒有賺回來，反而必需支付更多的金錢，顯然的，台灣企業在跨國專利侵權訴訟管理的方法論上出了極大的問題，而有立即改變之必要！ 有別於過去文獻侷限於「文獻與法規的翻譯」、「片段案例的選擇討論」、「過多理論的探討」、更幾乎沒有人探討重要的「中國專利侵權訴訟」，以致於見樹不見林，徒有理論而不會操作，消耗過多精力與資源於繁瑣而不重要的法律細節，卻無法猜透國際企業專利侵權訴訟背後的策略運籌，導致不能真正打贏過一場戰爭。 因此，本文提出一套跨國專利侵權訴訟管理之機制，橫跨最重要的兩個世界市場—美國、中國為主，法律面提供詳盡完整的如警告信發送、起訴、審前會議、馬克曼聽證會、發現程序、審判程序、專利無效程序、訴前救濟、保全措施等訴訟程序、制度規定與流程架構；企業管理面提供包含研發、生產製造、市場行銷、財務、會計、租稅、外部律師、專家、公證人等全面性管理策略，以大量實證的方式分析整理、以豐富的跨國專利侵權訴訟實戰經驗寫成，期望能使台灣產業真正打贏一場戰爭。 / Since 1980, Taiwan companies had been sued by European, U.S.A., Japan companies for patent infringements and forced to pay out enormously. Therefore, they started to invest tremendous amount of money and resources in research & development (R&D), as well as in patent prosecution. Last decade, Taiwan companies had already spent up to 190 billions New Taiwan Dollar (NTD) in U.S.A., Taiwan, and China patent prosecution and maintenance fee. Yet, if added up the cost of hundreds of transnational patent litigations, the total amount was up to 200 billions NTD and it did not include Taiwan companies had to pay out 150 billons NTD royalty yearly. 190 billions NTD for example could provide for twenty thousand employees and influence 470 thousand shareholders in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). This certainly exhibited that Taiwan companies had been invested magnificently in R&D and patent prosecution. However, examining the outcome of patent infringement litigations of Taiwan companies in last decade, it shows: (1) every year there are critical patent infringement litigations which influence the development of Taiwan industry; (2) litigations are throughout all important Taiwan industries; (3) in most of time, Taiwan companies are defendant , not plaintiff; (4) Taiwan companies reach the settlement with paying a great sum of indemnification and royalty mostly; (5) most Taiwan companies lose in the litigation. As the above described, although Taiwan companies have invested enormous resources in R&D and patent prosecution, it does not change the situation which every year Taiwan companies are sued for patent infringement, have to pay out a great sum of indemnification and royalty, and certainly still stand in indifferent position of the R&D value chains. After all, what Taiwan companies obtain is not what they expect from their investments. The cost of creation, protection, management of intellectual property include R&D, patent prosecution, patent litigation, royalty, and indemnification. Although U.S.A. companies invest a lot in R&D and patent prosecution, they usually earn back from patent litigation, royalty, and indemnification. However, Taiwan companies not only invest tremendous money and resources in R&D and patent prosecution, but also pay out much for royalty or the outcome of patent litigation. Obviously, Taiwan companies have some serious problems in their methodology of management transnational patent infringement litigations, thus it is very crucial to change their methodology immediately! Taiwan theses and studies usually fall into “translating foreign papers, laws and regulations ”, “discussing the choice of some parts of cases”, or “studying theories excessively”, also almost no inquires into patent litigations in China. Consequently, the discussions and studies of patent litigations in Taiwan have never brought out the whole picture and practical actions of strategic management of patent litigations. Obviously, most studies spend too much efforts and resources on legal details and ignore the most important matter which is how international companies control and manage transnational patent litigation. As a result, Taiwan companies never learn how to win a patent litigation war. Therefore, this thesis is different from other Taiwan theses because this thesis provides a mechanism of managing transnational patent infringement litigations. Prominently, this thesis covers patent litigation procedures and management in the most significant markets in the world—U.S.A. and China. In the legal aspect, this thesis provides information on the complete litigation procedure in U.S.A. and China which includes cease and desist letter , service, pre-trial conference, markman hearing, discovery, trial, patent validity procedure, pre-trial injunction, protective injunction; in the management aspect, this thesis provides complete management strategies which shall be carried out as the regular basis and during a patent litigation while managing R&D, manufacture, marketing, finance, accounting, taxing, law firm and lawyer, expert, judge performing notarization. Most importantly, this thesis analyzes enormous patent litigation cases and industrial information, therefore this thesis is able to provide the first and never-seen practical structure for Taiwan companies to win a patent litigation war.