The theme of this work is documental evidence and their influence on the practice of the courts. The author‘s suggested concept of the documental evidence is given in the work. It is accentuated that documental evidence consists not only from the documents but also from various material things that contains important information for the case. The given classification of the documental evidence confirms the proposition that evidence can be expressed in various material objects in various ways. The exceptional attention is payed to official documental evidence that is very important for the court practice because it has a prima facie power and can not be denied by the evidence of witnesses´ (with some exceptions).

大陸及臺灣均規定，發明專利權人專有排除他人未經其同意而實施該發明之權。亦規定，物之發明之實施，指製造、為販賣之要約、販賣、使用或為上述目的而進口該物之行為。在專利權人或其專屬被授權人提起專利侵權實體訴訟前，專利權人或其專屬被授權人一般得請求海關就嫌疑貨物為暫不放行措施或扣押，以防止侵害專利權之貨物進入商業市場。一般而言，涉及商標權或著作權之貨物較容易透過貨物外觀以觀察是否侵權。然而，大部分附有專利的貨物均不易以貨物外觀以觀察是否侵權。特別是，舉例而言，一支智慧型手機上可能有上千的專利於其上，而且許多商品都有類似情形。所以，由第一線的海關人員去辨識有無專利侵權是困難的。 「與貿易有關的智慧財產權協定」第52條規定，任何權利人申請第51條之暫不放行措施，都應向主管機關提出足以推定在進口國法律之下有侵害權利持有人智慧財產權之表面證據，並就有關物品提供詳細說明，俾使海關易於辨認。如果權利持有人提供有侵害其智慧財產權之表面證據，仿冒品或是盜版品一般來說較易於由海關第一線人員透過貨物外觀加以辨識。另一方面，專利權人或其專屬被授權人提出侵害其專利權之表面證據是困難的。 除上述問題之外，尚有一更困難的問題有待專利權人或其專屬被授權人解決。那便是，如果專利權人或其專屬被授權人不指派間諜至競爭對手之中，並不知道涉及侵害專利權之貨物何時、何地將會進口。因此，本論文嘗試研究如何扣押侵害專利權貨物之議題。 本論文區分為六個部分。第一章是緒論，說明研究動機及目的，以及研究方法及範圍。第二章是說明及定義智慧財產權邊境執行之指導原則，以及第一線海關人員依據貨物外觀辨識原則查尋嫌疑貨物。第三章是討論智慧財產權邊境執行之三種方式。第四章是分析與比較兩岸專利權之執行。第五章是闡述司法暫時權利保護與專利權邊境執行之配合。第六章是結論。 / Both Mainland China and Taiwan enacted laws to protect patentees’ exclusive rights to the invention and to prevent the rights from being exploited, without the patentee’s consent, via making, offering for sale, selling, using or importing of the infringed goods. Prior to filing the infringement litigation, the patentee or the exclusive licensee may generally initiate to request its customs authorities to suspend the release of, or to detain, suspect goods that involve the infringement of a patent from entering into the channels of commerce. Generally speaking, goods that involve trademark or copyright can be more easily observed whether it is infringed via its apprearance. However, most of goods that involve patents can not be more easily observed whether it is infringed, and inter alia, for example, there are probably more than 1,000 patent rights in one smart phone, and many goods have the similar situations. So it is difficult to distinguish infringed or non-infringed goods by front line staffs of customs. Article 52 of Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights defines suspension of release. It provides: “Any right holder initiating the procedures under Article 51 shall be required to provide adequate evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that, under the laws of the country of importation, there is prima facie an infringement of the right holder’s intellectual property right and to supply a sufficiently detailed description of the goods to make them readily recognizable by the customs authorities.” It’s understood that the counterfeit trademark or pirated copyright goods can be generally observed via its appearance by front line staffs of customs, if a right holder supply prima facie evidence of infringement of the right holder’s intellectual property right. On the other hand, it is very difficult for a patentee or a exclusive licensee to supply prima facie evidence of infringement of the patent. In addition to the above mentioned issues, there is a more severe problem that the patentee or the exclusive licensee needs to solve. It’s that the patentee or the exclusive licensee doesn’t know when and where the goods that involve the infringement of patents will import, if the patentee or the exclusive licensee seek for the goods that involve the infringement of patents without designating spies in rivals. Therefore, this thesis tries to research the issue with respect to how to detect and detain goods that infringe patent rights. This thesis is divided in six parts. Chapter 1 makes a description of the motive and the purpose of this article. It also includes the method and the range of this research. Chapter 2 explains and defines “The Guidelines of Intellectual Property Rights Border Enforcement” and the suspect of goods could be found by front line staffs of customs in compliance with “The Principle of Goods Appearance Identification”. Chapter 3 discusses three modes of intellectual property rights enforcement. Chapter 4 analyzes and compares Cross-Strait Customs in patent border enforcement. Chapter 5 describes cooperation of provisional measures and patent border enforcement. Finally, Chapter 6 is the conclusion.