近年來，國內陸續推動國家重大建設，其中包含東亞海空樞紐、高鐵新增三站、高雄鐵路地下化、臺中、員林鐵路高架化、市花東線鐵路瓶頸路段雙軌工程、捷運路線建設等公共工程發展，故在我國政府或地方政府積極推動全國或地方建設的同時，如何重視履約管理即可成為研究主題。因此，政府並於民國88年制訂採購法，其目的在於處理採購申訴事件及履約爭議調解案件，冀望在採購糾紛或工程爭議等事件擴大前，能以較有效的方式解決機關與廠商間的糾紛。 　　然而，在推動重大公共工程的同時，履約爭議之發生，軌道機關之工程施行亦將受到影響。有鑑於此，本研究擬針對國內軌道機關之公共工程履約爭議的影響因素，進行探究，藉以瞭解國內軌道機關之公共工程履約爭議的影響關係。其研究結果顯示： (1)近兩成比例的公共工程履約賠償金額有偏高傾向； (2)爭議訴訟結果與爭議案件發起人有顯著影響關係； (3)公共工程爭議訴訟結果不受處理類型的影響； (4)爭議處理方式會影響公共工程爭議處理次數。

近年來，我國食品安全爭議屢傳，就違反食安法規而非法添加、製造之食品對消費者身體健康造成之損害，消保會於塑化劑、大統油事件中，皆曾透過民法、消保法、食安法上之商品責任規定，為消費者提出損害賠償之團體訴訟，然而，在實體上，食用不符合衛生安全法規製造生產之食品，是否可認定必然對人體健康造成損害？具體疾病之發生與規範意義下之損害應如何區別應用？另，消保法上懲罰性賠償金究否由食品製造業者連帶負擔賠償責任？在食安法下，懲罰性賠償金之連帶是否有相異之解釋？在程序上，因疾病發生於醫學判斷上之多因性，使問題食品與身體健康權受侵害間之因果關係舉證陷入困難；而長期食用問題食品卻未罹患疾病者，其健康權之受損又應如何舉證？凡此，為食品安全之損害賠償訴訟中不可避免之核心議題，本文擬以實務判決所遇困境出發，探求食安訴訟下商品責任之解釋與適用。

第一章緒論，主要論及國家賠償法的政策之意義，研究本文的動機與目的，和研究方 法與限制。 第二章為本文分析的理論架構，主要內容為公共政策的定義，公共政策之分析與分析 模型，最後談到本文的分析架構。 第三章為本法的政策制定背景與制定過程，首先說明本法制定時的外環境影響因素， 共分兩方面說明，第一是各國外交政策與國際政治，第二是各國法律與法學思潮。其 次是論及國內環境對本法形成的影響，分為六項說明，包括國內財經能力與人民教育 水準，政治環境與行政環境，相關的制度與法規，與本國的法律文化。 第四章是本法合法化之過程分析，說明政策合法化的定義與我國政策合法化的法定過 程與合法化的分析方法。最後論及本法暨本法施行細則合法的程序分析。 第五章主要就本法與施行細則的內容加以說明。 第六章比較各國與我國國家賠償法。 第七章說明實施國家賠償法前的準備工作與實施本法的概況，並對本法皂實施加以評 佸。 第八章總結前幾章所發掘皂問題與提出的建議，並對本法提出綜合的改進意見，以及 對相關的因素提出修正的方案，以期爾後能對本法的實施提供有利的環境，並期本法 能臻於至善之境。

經研讀相關文獻後，本文試以勞工於職災真實案例中，所得主張之各種請求權出發，探討相關法制內涵之規範目的及給付之性質。全文之章節安排如下： 第一章 緒論 闡述本文之研究動機與目的、研究方法、研究範圍與限制及研究架構。 第二章 職業災害補償內容概要 本章從憲法基礎出發，探討職業災害定義、職業災害認定之成立要件、職業災害補償制度之沿革及職業災害補償制度之本質。 第三章 我國職業災害救濟制度之內涵 本章臚列職災之勞工各種救濟制度內涵，有民法中之侵權行為之損害賠償責任、債務不履行之損害賠償責任、勞動基準法之補償責任、勞工保險條例之給付規定、職業災害勞工保護法中得請領之津貼及補助。 第四章 承攬關係中職業災害補償相關問題 本章探討勞基法第六十二條連帶補償責任所衍生之各種爭議。 第五章 職業災害補償抵充關係之適用 本章以抵充規定之意涵及先決要件出發，探討與勞工保險抵充之疑義、與民法賠償金抵充、與商業保險抵充、與其他商業險、與撫卹金或其他殮葬補助費抵充之各項疑義。 第六章 職業災害補償相關問題之探討 本章探討勞基法中職災補償之和解低於勞基法標準、受領權之拋棄及禁止扣押之規定。其次，第三人之加害行為可否認定為職業災害、而雇主或保險人得否代位向第三人求償。再者，討論通勤災害補償問題法規之明確化、與有過失原則之適用問題及職業災害勞工保護法之定位。最後，職業災害醫療期間禁止解僱及例外規定。而勞保中身故受益人加了「專受撫養」之限制，致雇主無法抵充補償責任之罕見現象。 第七章 派遣勞工職業災害補償與賠償相關問題 討論現行法中對派遣勞工之職災補償及賠償問題，並提出我國於勞動派遣尚未立法通過前，派遣關係下職災救濟制度的解決方式。 第八章 結論與建議 總結前述各章節之重點，檢討現行制度內涵，並對其缺點及疏漏提出具體建議以供日後修法之參考，以保障職災勞工權益。

為保護汽車意外事故受害者，韓國於1963年制定「汽車損害賠償保障法」(Automobile liability security law)，即為「強制汽車損害賠償責任保險」(Compulsory automobile liability insurance)的法律基礎，本法對於汽車意外事故所因起之損害賠償責任，在民法上優先適用，成為民法（不法行為）之特別法，而規定強制投保汽車責任險為取得牌照之前提要件，並採用接近無過失責任主義及認定受害者直接請求權。韓國強制汽車責任保險法制施行以來經過數次之修正然而仍然存有許多缺失，如保險金額過低等，而社會大眾對其服務品質依然不滿，因此無法滿足充分保障之需求。在此種情況下，韓國強制汽車責任保險應何去何從？如何加以改進？則為一個值得關心的問題，也就是本論文研究之動機。本論文之研究範圍為著重於改革韓國強制汽車責任保險制度，本文先擬以汽車事故損害賠償制度為始，進而說明韓國之汽車損害賠償保障法及強制汽車損害賠償責任保險制度之內容，最後提出筆者管見，強調欲期改革韓國強制汽車責任保險制度，達建立健全完善之制度及保護受害人之目的，作為結論。本文若對中韓兩國車禍賠償問題之合理解決果能有所助益，則甚幸矣！

本論文的研究重心為1980年聯合國國際商品買賣契約（以下簡稱CISG）七十四條第二段所規定之「預見可能性原則」。 第二章「預見可能性原則在比較法上的觀察」中整理大陸法系，普通法系及CISG的前身ULIS、國際統一商務契約原理和PECL等以預見可能性原則做為限制賠償責任制度的相關規定和研究成果，做為解釋CISG預見可能性原則的基礎。 第三章「CISG的預見可能性原則」則以CISG七十四條第二段的預見可能性原則規定為中心，分節探討其體系架構、構成要件，例如預見的主體、客體（包含損害的可能性、類型與規模）、判斷的主客觀標準、判斷時點及舉證責任等問題。除了以第二章在比較法上的觀察為解釋的材料以外，也視情況引用聯合國秘書處所提供之一九七八年CISG草案註釋。 第四章「預見可能性原則與我國法之比較分析」整理我國現行契約法上通用的責任限制原則──相當因果關係原則和法規目的原則，再將預見可能性原則與之分別比較分析，從其中觀察到不同的政策背景如何地影響制度的形成並造成彼此的差異。 最後，於第五章「結論」中總結本論文對CISG預見可能性原則及與我國法比較分析後的結論與論文寫作的一點心得。

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.

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(エネルギー科学) / 甲第17990号 / エネ博第292号 / 新制||エネ||60(附属図書館) / 80834 / 京都大学大学院エネルギー科学研究科エネルギー社会・環境科学専攻 / (主査)教授 手塚 哲央, 教授 石原 慶一, 准教授 永田 素彦 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Energy Science / Kyoto University / DFAM

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.

我國政府採購法第85條第3項規定，針對招標申訴審議判斷指明機關違反法令時，廠商得請求償付其準備投標、異議，申訴之必要費用，該請求權係根據「政府採購協定」所定。但由於政府採購法及相關法規均未規定該條項所定之請求權之法律定性為何，以及何謂必要費用等，而本法主管機關亦不做解釋，加上備標費用證明不易，使法院見解只能趨於保守，並產生許多爭議。 目前國內探討本條項規定之文獻數量極少，相關判決亦不多，因此筆者認為，除了從我國學說及實務見解出發之外，本條項既根據政府採購協定而訂定，則其他協定締約國法院對相似案例之見解，應亦可供我國法院參考。因此本文選擇同為政府採購協定締約國，且政府採購金額於世界名列前茅的美國、歐盟，以及英國作為選擇比較研究之對象，並採取實務判決見解分析、文獻研究，以及比較研究之研究方法。 第一章為序論，說明本研究之動機、目的、範圍以及方法。第二、三、四、五章則分別討論我國、美國、歐盟，以及英國之公共採購相關法規，並分析各國司法實務審理參與政府採購之廠商主張採購機關違反採購法規致其未得標，而請求投標、備標及申訴異議等費用，甚至請求其他賠償時，所可能肯認之請求權基礎、應否賠償之判斷標準、應得賠償之範圍，以及得賠償金額之審酌標準，並於各章提出各國較具代表性之具體案例，以了解各判斷標準之實際操作。第六章則參酌各國實務見解及判決，與我國採購法相關法條及實務見解加以分析比較，以提出筆者認為值得參考的審查標準，並提出修法建議，以為本文結論。 筆者於研究後認為，在程序部份，應放寬政府採購法第75條可提起異議申訴之當事人適格認定，並將同法第85條第1項明定為：「審議判斷或法院確定判決指明原採購行為違反法令者，招標機關應另為適法之處置。」而使第3項所稱之「第一項情形」包含司法判決確定時。關於實體部份，筆者認為政府採購法第85條第3項所規定之請求權似乎可定義為行政法上債務關係之締約過失賠償請求權，而建議將此條項修改為：「第一項情形，廠商得向招標機關請求賠償其準備投標、異議及申訴所支出之合理費用。」以釐清此請求權應屬廣義之國家對人民之賠償，並將賠償範圍由「必要」改為「合理」，以免實務見解過度限縮。此外，筆者並認為，此請求權為違反已經存在之債務關係義務而生之責任，與國家賠償法之賠償係不法行為所生之侵權賠償責任性質應屬不同而可能併存。因此，廠商若因機關違法而受有其他損害，並符合國家賠償法所定之要件，似乎亦可循國家賠償法請求賠償。 / In accordance with Article 85.3 of the Government Procurement Act of Taiwan, an unsuccessful tenderer of public procurement is entitled to recover the “necessary” costs he has incurred in his bid/proposal preparation and protest/complaint process if he has challenged the procuring agency’s relevant decision in time and the decision has been declared to be in breach of statutes and regulations by the review authority, the Public Construction Commission. This article is legislated according to the principle laid down by the Government Procurement Agreement that stipulates challenge procedures reviewing procuring agency’s decision shall provide compensation for the loss or damage suffered by the complaining tenderer. However, there have been a lot of disputes concerning the legal status of the basis of action stipulated in this article and the exact extent of the compensable costs since they have never been defined clearly by any statute or explained by the authority. Along with the difficulties in proving the relevancy and “necessity” of the expenses and costs, these disputes have driven the Administrative Court to take a very restrictive view in deciding the recoverable costs which in many cases may not be appropriate remedies for the complaining tenderers. With very limited literature focusing on the disputes arising from this article and a very small number of judgments of such cases in Taiwan, I attempt to explore the opinions expressed not only by Taiwan’s court and scholars but also by the courts of the other countries that are also parties to the GPA and have similar articles in their statutory law in order to offer a comparative perspective that will help resolving the differences concerning the interpretation of this article. Besides Taiwan, I have chosen to examine the judicial review of such cases in the USA, the UK and the EU since their public procurement budgets are on the top list of the world and they are all members of the GPA. The first chapter states the purpose, the extent and the method of this study. The second, third, fourth and fifth chapters respectively discuss the main public procurement regulations and analyze the judicial review standards concerning the basis of actions, the possible remedies and the extent of damages allowed in Taiwan, the USA, the EU and the UK (including the judicial system of England, Wales and the North Ireland and the judicial system of Scotland). In the final chapter, I try to offer a comparative view and to suggest possible changes to the relevant statues and review standards in Taiwan. After completing the research, I suggest that a prospected bidder should also be recognized as an interested party that has standing in making claims against procuring authority for damages in order to ensure judicial review of important procuring decisions. Besides, Article 85.1 of the Government Procurement Act of Taiwan should be revised as “where a review decision or an unappealable court judgment specifies that the procuring entity is in breach of Acts and Regulations, the procuring entity shall proceed with a lawful alternative,” so that the protesting bidder will have the right for damages endowed by Article 85.3 of the same act if the procuring decision in question has been declared in breach of law only by the court but not by the Public Construction Commission. The right for compensation of tender preparation and protest costs stipulated by article 85.3 of the Government Procurement Act should be defined as a right arising from the procuring authority’s liability based on culpa in contrahendo in administrative law. Therefore, this article should be revised as “where the circumstance set forth in paragraph 1 occurs, the supplier may request the procuring entity to reimburse the reasonable expenses incurred by the supplier for the preparation of tender and the filing of protest and complaint.” Besides, just as the liability based on culpa in contrahendo is different from the liability arising from tort and the former does not substitute for the later, an unsuccessful tenderer’s claim for compensation based on Article 85.3 of the Government Procurement Act should not exclude his right in making other claims for other loss or damage according to the State Compensation Law.