On étudie dans cette thèse le transfert de technologie à travers la licence de brevet dans des modèles à la Hotelling, à la Salop puis à deux dimensions. On trouve que le régime optimal dépend des coûts de production , de la taille de l'innovation et du modèle géographique de la localisation des consommateurs. On montre qu'un prix fixe peut être optimal dans un modèle à deux dimensions et qu'une royaltie peut être optimale même pour une innovation intense dans un modèle à la Hotelling quand les coûts sont asymétriques et que la firme innovatrice est inefficiente en terme de coûts. / We study in this thesis technology transfer through patent licensing in a Hotelling mdel, a Salop model and a two dimensionnal model. We find that the optimal licensing regime depends on the costs, on the size of the innovation and the geographic model of consumers locations. We show that a fixed fee can be optimal in a two dimensionnal model and that royalty licensing can be optimal even for a drastic ennovation in a Hotelling model with asymmetric costs and ineficient patent holder.

La R&D interne coûte de plus en plus cher et son efficacité en termes de succès commercial est limitée. Lalicence de brevet constitue incontestablement un outil décisif pour maintenir la compétitivité des entreprises,notamment dans les secteurs de haute technologie, telles que les biotechnologies et les nanotechnologies. Lapratique révèle que, pour assurer un réel transfert de technologies, l’invention concédée est le plus souventaccompagnée par des prestations complémentaires portant sur le savoir-faire, les perfectionnements etl’assistance technique. L’interprétation et les modalités d’exécution de ces prestations sont à l’origine denombreuses questions d’importance pratique et théorique. D’une part, l’appréhension des notions de savoir-faire,de perfectionnement et d’assistance technique est délicate. D’autre part, l’étendue des obligations du concédantet du licencié à l’égard des compléments de l’invention concédée est incertaine. La prise en compte del’économie du contrat de licence de brevet s’avère essentielle pour apporter des solutions juridiques et pratiquesappropriées. Il s’agit de déterminer la destination du brevet concédé, telle qu’elle a été convenue par les parties.Celles-ci envisagent-elles une simple autorisation visant l’exécution de l’invention selon la description ?Cherchent-elles, au contraire, un transfert de maîtrise de la technologie brevetée permettant une exploitationoptimale ? En droit américain, en l’absence de clauses portant sur les compléments de l’invention concédée, leconcédant ne doit rien d’autre que la délivrance du brevet à son licencié. En revanche, force est de constaterqu’en droit français, sauf stipulations contraires, le donneur de licence est tenu de délivrer, en cas d’inégalitéd’information entre les parties, tous les compléments indispensables à « l’exploitation effective et sérieuse » del’invention concédée. / The internal R&D is increasingly expensive and its effectiveness in terms of commercialization success islimited. Patent licenses are undoubtedly a powerful tool to maintain business competitiveness, especially in hightechnology sectors such as biotechnology and nanotechnology. The practice shows that, to ensure effectivetechnology transfers, patent licenses are most often accompanied by accessory obligations on know-how,improvements and technical assistance. Interpretation and implementing rules of these obligations are the sourceof many issues of practical and theoretical importance. On the one hand, the notions of know-how, improvementand technical assistance are difficult to define. On the other hand, the extent of the parties’ obligations as to the“complements” of the licensed invention is uncertain. It is crucial to understand the economics of patentlicensing agreements to provide legal solutions and practical measures. This is to determine the legal purpose ofthe license, as it has been agreed by the parties. Do they contemplate a simple authorization for the “execution”of the invention according to the description? Do they seek, instead, a transfer of control of the patentedtechnology allowing optimum “exploitation” of the invention? Under U.S. law, in the absence of an expresscontractual stipulation, rights to know-how, improvements and technical assistance cannot be taken for granted.According to French law, unless otherwise provided in the contract, the licensor is obligated to supply, in case ofinequality of information between the parties, all “complements” which are indispensable for “an effective andserious exploitation” of the licensed invention.

abstract: It is well understood that innovation drives productivity growth in agriculture. Innovation, however, is a process that involves activities distributed throughout the supply chain. In this dissertation I investigate three topics that are at the core of the distribution and diffusion of innovation: optimal licensing of university-based inventions, new variety adoption among farmers, and consumers’ choice of new products within a social network environment. University researchers assume an important role in innovation, particularly as a result of the Bayh-Dole Act, which allowed universities to license inventions funded by federal research dollars, to private industry. Aligning the incentives to innovate at the university level with the incentives to adopt downstream, I show that non-exclusive licensing is preferred under both fixed fee and royalty licensing. Finding support for non-exclusive licensing is important as it provides evidence that the concept underlying the Bayh-Dole Act has economic merit, namely that the goals of university-based researchers are consistent with those of society, and taxpayers, in general. After licensing, new products enter the diffusion process. Using a case study of small holders in Mozambique, I observe substantial geographic clustering of new-variety adoption decisions. Controlling for the other potential factors, I find that information diffusion through space is largely responsible for variation in adoption. As predicted by a social learning model, spatial effects are not based on geographic distance, but rather on neighbor-relationships that follow from information exchange. My findings are consistent with others who find information to be the primary barrier to adoption, and means that adoption can be accelerated by improving information exchange among farmers. Ultimately, innovation is only useful when adopted by end consumers. Consumers’ choices of new products are determined by many factors such as personal preferences, the attributes of the products, and more importantly, peer recommendations. My experimental data shows that peers are indeed important, but “weak ties” or information from friends-of-friends is more important than close friends. Further, others regarded as experts in the subject matter exert the strongest influence on peer choices. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Business Administration 2015

本論文主要是在探討延展性權利金(reach-through royalty)條款的競爭法規制。首先，本文對於研究工具專利及延展性權利金條款的意義及概念作一說明，接著簡介目前各國之競爭法制與專利法制的權衡概況，並探討一些與延展性權利金條款有關之授權條款，以了解目前競爭法對於延展性權利金條款所可能導致之相關效應的評價，作為後續分析該條款適法性的基礎，再來整理美國實務及學說對於延展性權利金條款的看法，最後綜合檢討相關論述，提出本文見解。經研究後，本文認為，延展性權利金條款有其促進競爭效應(如提供風險分攤機制、幫助起始公司解決現金壓力問題以及提供授權雙方較佳的協商估價基礎)亦有其限制競爭效應(如降低被授權人研發誘因而有限制研發的效果及權利金堆疊效應)，因此一概禁止或一概允許此種條款皆非適當，而應視個案情形依合理原則的標準加以權衡，以決定系爭行為的適法性。 / The present article discusses the antitrust regulation for reach-through royalty provisions which mainly used in biotechnology research tool patent licensing. First, this article introduces the meanings of research tool patent and reach-through royalties. Second, it illustrates antitrust regulations for patent licensing in foreign countries specifically in U.S., European Union, together with R.O.C. and, furthermore, it also discusses provisions similar or related to reach-through royalties. Third, this article introduces the discussions about reach-through royalty provisions in U.S., including the NIH Guideline, case law regulations and other related discussions by scholars. Finally, the present article analyzes the effects of reach-through royalties more deeply based on the mentioned discussions and makes a suggestion for the regulation of reach-through royalties. This article argues: since reach-through royalties have both anti-competitive and pro-competitive effects, a total ban or allowance is not appropriate and a “rule of reason” inspection should be applied to such provisions for better efficiencies.

知識經濟時代的來臨，代表知識早已經取代勞力、土地、資本，成為最重要的生產要素，而知識創造的具體果實就是智慧財產，此項無形資產占企業財產的重要性已遠超過有形資產。個人、企業和國家唯有專注在智慧財產的創造、保護、管理和運用上，方可成為知識經濟下的大贏家。 近年來，隨著人類科學知識與生活智慧的增長與演進，與人類日常生活和生命安全息息相關的生物醫學技術日益突破且其重要性與日俱增，國際間生技產業發展迅速，並帶領生技產業走向多元化的發展；除此之外，生技產業也是台灣兩兆雙星計畫中所追求的新興產業之一。然而，台灣在這股趨勢洪流中，整體生技產業的發展上並不蓬勃。歸根究柢，生技產業乃為典型的高附加價值、知識導向型產業，智慧財產的重要性不言可喻並且更加突顯。智慧財產如同其他企業資產一樣，需要善加管理與運用才能發揮其價值，若企業擁有大量之智慧財產，但對該智慧財產欠缺有效之管理運用，亦無法為公司創造任何價值。因此，如何為智慧財產尋求正確的運用管道，應是智慧財產所有人最為關心的議題。由於生物技術產業十分重視技術的掌握與應用，故本論文研究將焦點放在與技術知識保護有關的「專利授權與技術移轉」上，並特別針對屬於智慧財產行銷管理層面的策略進行探討。 《時代》雜誌年度風雲人物華裔科學家何大一曾說過要用人才賭生技，其需要的是什麼樣的人才?又該如何賭?本論文研究希望能提出相對應之見解，藉由個案研究方法分析找出台灣生技企業在「專利授權與技術移轉」上的策略思考邏輯，並更加釐清智慧財產行銷管理對產業發展影響的角色與位置。 由於台灣生物技術公司目前本身先天條件不佳且資源不足，無法透過商品化與產業化之智慧財產實施方式來創造最大利益，因此透過智慧財產交換方式乃是其最佳模式，而考量相關環境條件後，其中又以「專利授權與技術移轉」為最具經濟效益且最可能成功之智慧財產商業模式與型態，因此本論文研究便針對此方面進行深入探討，以提供產業後續發展之參考借鏡。 本論文研究目的包括：1.探討推動台灣生物技術產業公司發展過程中，考量「專利授權與技術移轉」的重要因素。2.瞭解台灣生物技術產業公司目前在「專利授權與技術移轉」方面的運作機制。3.介紹台灣生物技術產業公司之指標性個案，分析其智慧財產行銷策略，歸納其關鍵成功因素，以茲其他業者參考。4.了解智慧財產行銷策略的核心結構，提出智慧財產行銷策略規劃上的建議。5.綜合研究結果，提出對台灣生物技術產業公司「專利授權與技術移轉」策略之建議，並分析該產業之潛在問題與可能限制。 本論文研究提出理論強調台灣生物技術產業公司必須考量智慧財產行銷的六大要素(6P)，以『主導產業鏈』、『控制價值鏈』、『分配供應鏈』等三鏈為目標，因而決定採取「專利授權與技術移轉」之正確的智慧財產商業模式後，站在目標被授權人的立場思考，透過「策略九說」來作檢驗，以找出最適合的智慧財產行銷之執行策略，並在執行時確實考量組織行銷之特性。 本論文研究方式採用個案研究法以及質化研究法，獲得以下結論： 1. 「專利授權與技術移轉」必須著重於專利品質，以更貼近產業與市場需求，進而強化技術移轉之成效。 2. 「專利授權與技術移轉」是屬於相當複雜且專業性高的領域，與市場互動至關密切。 3. 任何產業的任何公司當其智慧財產行銷策略之方向目標正確，且手段方法合理，則成功便是可以預期的。 4. 一旦擬定正確的智慧財產行銷策略，則後續的執行力，便成為是否成功之唯一重點。 / The coming of Knowledge-based Economy Era indicates the fact that knowledge had taken the place of labor, land and capital to become the most important production factor. The results of knowledge creation are Intellectual Property (IP). The Intangible Assets are much more important than Tangible Assets for industries in nowadays. It becomes crucial for individuals, industries, and countries to achieve success in the Knowledge-based Economy Era to concentrate on the creation, protection, management and application of intellectual property. In the recent years, because of the developments of scientific knowledge and life wisdom, the progress and importance of the biomedical technology which closely related to human life and safety advances rapidly. Besides, the biotechnology industry is also one of the booming industries of Taiwan “Two Millions, Two Stars” projects. However, the Taiwan Biotechnology Industry does not follow the trend well. The biotechnology industry is a typical high value added and knowledge oriented industry, and the importance of IP is much more distinct. Same as other corporation’s property, intellectual property needs to be managed and put to use well to manifest its value. If a corporation owns a lot of IP without effective management and application, none value or benefit will be produced for the corporation from the IP. Therefore, for the IP owner, how to find out the correct application ways of IP will be the most important concern. Since technology familiarity and application is a highly emphasized issue for biotechnology industry, this study will focus on the technology knowledge protection concerning “Patent Licensing and Technology Transferring,” especially on the IP Marketing Management Strategy. David Ho, a Chinese American scientist and the Man of the year 1996 of “Time” magazine, once said that “we have to bet on biotechnology with talents”. The question is what talents are needed, and how to bet? This study aims to provide some corresponding thoughts and find out the strategy of “Patent Licensing and Technology Transferring” for Taiwan biotechnology corporation through case study. Furthermore, the study will manifest how IP Marketing Management will influence industry development. Due to the immature company structure and small business size of Taiwan biotechnology corporations, these corporations are unable to create the best profit through IP commercialization or industrization. Thus, the best model for them will be through IP Exchange and the “Patent Licensing and Technology Transferring” will be the most effective and feasible IP Business Model given the conditions of Taiwan biotechnology industry. This thesis will concentrate on this aspect and provide advices for industrial developments. The purposes of this study include: a. the important factors and the significnace of “Patent Licensing and Technology Transferring” in the promotion of Taiwan biotechnology corporation development; b. the current mechanism of “Patent Licensing and Technology Transferring” of Taiwan biotechnology corporation; c. a case study of Taiwan biotechnology corporation, including the IP Marketing Strategy analysis and the key successful factors as reference for other corporations; d. the core structure of IP Marketing Strategy and IP Marketing Strategy planning; and e. strategy suggestions for “Patent Licensing and Technology Transferring” and the potential problem analysis of the industry to Taiwan biotechnology corporation. This study proposes that the Taiwan biotechnology corporation must put the 6P factors of IP Marketing into consideration and target to dominate Industry Chain, to control Value Chain, and to allocate Supply Chain. They should also take the correct IP Business Model of “Patent Licensing and Technology Transferring”, and then think in the position of the targeted licensee through the examination of “9 Theories of Strategy” to find out the most suitable IP Marketing strategy. They should also take the characteristics of “Organizational Marketing” into consideration in practice. This study comes to the conclusions below with case study and qualitative methods: a. The quality of patents is always important in “Patent Licensing and Technology Transferring” to meet the industry and market demand and thus to reinforce the technology transferring achievement. b. “Patent Licensing and Technology Transferring” is complicated, highly professional and closely related to the market. c. The success of any corporation of any industry lies on a correct IP Marketing Strategy and a legitimate method. d. Once the correct IP Marketing Strategy is settled, the only key factor to success will be how to enforce the strategy.

長期以來，商業交易多半是單純為取得某種物品或權利，由交易雙方協商並訂立合約，如買方為取得房地而願給付價金，賣方為取得金錢乃願出售房屋。然而二十世紀之後，經濟型態的轉變為交易的內容帶來了重大的轉變，智慧財產權的讓與或授權交易漸趨熱門，在商業經營中時時刻刻上演。如同典型的交易一樣，就取得權利者而言，其願意將所有的專利、商標、著作權等權利加以利用，以獲取金錢利益；反之，欲利用者則透過與權利擁有者訂立合約的方式，將之利用於所生產的商品或服務，增加其邊際效用，獲取更大的利潤。 在此背景之下，智慧財產的讓與或是授權，其交易的型態與方式漸行複雜，對於企業的經營更是有著決定性的影響，加上智慧財產權，可說是法律所創設出來的權利，其異於傳統財產實體的特質，更難以令習慣傳統交易的我們加以掌握，因此有深入研究的必要，本論文即基於此背景，開始關於智慧財產諸多活動中的一個課題-「授權」活動展開研究。 因此，本篇論文研究有以下的目的： 一、 從高科技產業獨特的環境去瞭解智慧財產授權所扮演的角色。 二、 智慧財產授權對於高科技企業經營策略之影響與作用，反之，高科技經營策略之擬定後，是否可以傑由授權達成其目的。 三、 高科技企業在面臨智慧財產授權契約談判時，應如何爭取最佳利益。 四、 高科技企業營運策略中，關於簽訂授權契約可能引發的法律相關議題應如何面對。 本研究即基於上述目的，從法律面及商業管理的角度去探討智慧財產授權活動所引發企業經營的策略意涵，以三個層次分別來說明：一、企業經營層次；二、授權契約談判層次；三、相關法律議題層次。透過三個層次的分析與歸納，本研究針對高科技企業之經營與智慧財產權授權的策略運用提出下列數點之建議： （一） 智慧財產授權是一個複雜的領域，涉及法律、管理、技術等面向，因此我國高科技企業必須走出權利金追索與授權的泥沼中，重新架構授權與企業的經營策略。 （二） 我國高科技企業若欲藉由授權活動予以獲利，則最重要的是將企業轉型為真正的知識型企業，持續研發，蓄積優質的智慧財產權，如此才能將智慧財產授權活動的功用發揮到最大。 （三） 企業應培養相關智慧財產權授權相關人才，並考量是否建制一個獨立的智慧財產授權部門。 （四） 授權契約的簽訂將會影響企業未來研發的發展方向，因此建議企業於簽署授權契約時，必須考量企業本身是否可以自行研發該技術，或是其他替代性技術的可行性，切勿因為被國外的企業一警告，即簽署智慧財產權的授權契約。 （五） 反之，既然專利訴訟需耗費大量的人力、物力、時間與金錢，因此面對專利侵權訴訟時，應考量接受授權的可能性，授權所付出的成本與進行訴訟的成本相較後取其較低者。但是需注意的是，縱使獲得他人授權，然亦不代表會侵害第三人之專利，換言之獲得一家企業的授權，並不表示已經一勞永逸的無侵權可能性。故建議企業在接受專利授權時，必須詳細的評估該專利的範圍。 （六） 授權與智慧財產的保護與執行有緊密的關係，因此企業應加強智慧財產的保護與執行，才可以降低授權活動所面臨的風險。 （七） 智慧財產授權，基於智慧財產的無形性的特性而生，與傳統的有形財產有迥然不同的性質，善加利用智慧財產權的特性，將可使企業擺脫傳統的營業模式，邁向新的獲利境界。建議企業應重新的審視自己所有的智慧資產，加以稽核與評估，結合本研究所提出的授權策略架構，重新思索企業的營運方向與智慧資產的利用是否完善，有效的提升企業的競爭地位，創造更多的經營優勢。

本論文主要是在探討現行公平交易法第四十五條「依照著作權法、商標法或專利法行使權利之正當行為，不適用本法之規定」，其中有關專利權之部分。蓋專利權屬於智慧財產權之一種，係國家以法律授予私人的一種獨占、排他權利，亦即，專利權人就其所獲之專利請求範圍，係處於一種法定專有排除他人未經其同意而製造、販賣、使用或進口該專利之獨占權能地位。專利法藉由此一賦予專利權人特定期間之專屬排他權 (Exclusive Right)/獨占壟斷權，以提供一定之經濟上利益為誘因，藉此鼓勵發明人『公開』符合可專利要件；而競爭法制係為維護公平、自由競爭秩序與環境而必須規範獨占、聯合、結合等限制競爭行為及不公平競爭行為，兩者之糾結關係應如何釐清？素有經濟憲法高地位之稱之競爭法制，應如何在法律特設專利獨占權之制度目的考量下，揮舞它這把大刀？又法律特設專利獨占權之制度目的，又會如何影響競爭法制規制專利權利之界線，是本文想要探究、嘗試解決之議題亦為本文研究目的所在。 鑑於目前我國對於公平交易法第四十五條之法律定位爭議甚大，復以目前我國對於專利權之正當權利行使行為之實務摸索尚處於萌芽之未臻成熟階段，本文擬以專利制度之制度目的及專利財產之本質出發，再借鏡國美國法制百餘年之行政執法、司法實務之實證觀察方式，試圖對目前我國越來越多之專利權權利行使與公平交易法之交錯相關議題及爭議，提出一些可能的思考方向與解決之道，並以法律體系解釋、法律目的解釋、市場經濟以及專利制度之制度目的等思維角度，嘗試定義公平交易法第四十五條之專利權正當權利行使行為，並將本文所建議之審查基準與審查步驟作成審查流程圖，作為本文之總結。