近十年高科技產業的發展，自iPod、iPhone至iPad等行動裝置的創新、問世，無疑是由Apple公司獨領風騷、引領潮流，而這些行動裝置的硬體型態或許不同，軟體、作業系統也不盡相同，但唯一的共通點就是大量採用「觸控」技術。在台灣企業中，義隆電子及禾瑞亞兩間公司均是相當專注於發展觸控偵測技術之公司，而此二間企業，面臨商場上白熱化的競爭，尤其是作為原告的義隆電子將如何以訴訟發動攻擊，而身為訴訟經驗淺薄的被告禾瑞亞公司又將如何應戰，均係本研究擬探討的問題。 透過蒐集文獻的方式，本研究對觸控面板產業的發展、各國際大廠在觸控專利的佈局做了基本的鋪墊。有鑑於義隆電子本身在專利侵權訴訟中有十多年豐富的經驗，故本文以義隆電子的訴訟經驗為藍本，歸納出若干訴訟發動及應訴策略，並將義隆電子與禾瑞亞訴訟中發生之具體問題納入各該策略章節一併討論，例如義隆電子起訴動機、訴訟標的價額之認定、定暫時狀態處分、以及企業普遍以發布重大訊息之方式公告起訴他企業，是否變相地違反公平交易委員會關於警告函之規定等。 本研究發現義隆電子因為歷經眾多國內外專利訴訟的洗禮，因此就訴訟各個階段的掌握及訊息處理較為嫻熟，主要亦由其掌握訴訟的節奏。然而，身為被告的企業應在訴訟中多採取積極的攻擊態勢，而非僅消極防守，包括接收到警告函時，應以適切的意見書及信函回應；若確遭起訴，應先為程序抗辯，尤其在起訴成本低廉的我國，盡可能的提高原告應付的裁判費實係被告方首先應嘗試爭取的戰場。此外，於訴訟中針對系爭專利提起舉發案、或是向公平交易委員會提出違反公平交易法之檢舉皆是被告最好的反制措施。然而，預防勝於治療，企業內部若能建立日常的專利監控機制，時時關注競爭對手動態，方為治標又治本的方法。

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