The dissertation examines the enforcement of monetary claims in cases of intellectual property rights infringement. It focuses on the Act n. 221/2006 Sb. on the enforcement of intellectual property and on the directive 2004/48/EC of the European parliament and of the Council. The main aim is to evaluate the extent of monetary claims especially with regard on possible overlap or mutual consumption of the claims.The second aim is the analysis of English terminology in relation to the nearest Czech equivalents. The dissertation uses methods of logic induction and abstraction and the international multilateral comparative method, where the use of language plays a crucial role. The exact method of modelling combined with mathematical game theory is used. The dissertation progressively explains terms and relevant enactments. It introduces existing ambiguities. It tries to clarify them by analysing the EU legislation, the implementations in different member states, the statutory and common law in the USA. Consecutively it focuses on unjust enrichment in English law, then in the USA and in the continental system, where this institute is set negatively -- as the unjustified enrichment. Within the whole thesis the analysis takes place in relation to intellectual property rights infringement. In the penultimate chapter, TRIPS and ACTA are compared with the directive 2004/48/EC to provide further explanations. The dissertation concludes that a parallel award of damages and infringer's profits theoretically is possible, when it is not a single flow of value which is concerned by the infringement. The dissertation negatively replies to the question if damages and infringer's profits may be awarded concurrently in two separate lump-sum amounts according to § 5 (2) or (3) of the Act n. 221/2006 Sb. The reason is that the rate of the royalty is applied to sales of the infringer. These sales relate to the unjust enrichment of the infringer. If damages were again calculated by applying the same rate to the same sales, that would be double recovery. But theoretically this possibility cannot be excluded. A real-world example is very hard to find, even in the non-lump-sum form. Collateral sales awarded with lost profit in US law may serve as one. From the EU documents it seems, that infringer's profits is equalled to unjust enrichment and that is translated as unjustified enrichment. But English theory distinguishes restitution of unjust enrichment and gain-based recovery for wrong, the latter encompassing the award of infringer's profits in the form of damages. The broader Czech notion of unjustified enrichment is not to be equalled to unjust enrichment in the pure English notion, because the former encompasses also intentional wrongs. With regard to the restitution of infringer's profits based on unjust enrichment, the intent plays a role. The broader notion of unjust enrichment relevant to intellectual property rights infringement is called interceptive unjust enrichment, where enrichment "from the property of the plaintiff" is at stake and it is also possible to claim profits gained by the infringement. Focus is on the enrichment "from the property", not on the wrong. The dissertation examines the terms "account of profits", apportionment of profits", "disgorgement" and impure negotiorum gestio with regard to intellectual property infringement. In several countries reasonable royalty is regarded as good measure of net gain from the infringement of intellectual property. When the infringement was not innocent or wilful, it's possible to claim not only the objective enrichment but also the subjective enrichment -- profits of the infringer. In Czech law, that is represented by the emoluments from the enrichment. The aim of the last chapter is to evaluate, in the context of the operation of other relevant elements of legal environment, the preventive function of the double royalty claim introduced by the Act n. 221/2006 Sb. By construing a game theory model and using simulation, the thesis concludes that in lower royalty intervals, where attorney's costs are a high burden, the effect of the double royalty is insignificant. Where "more significant infringements" are at stake, and the royalty passes a given frontier, the application of the double royalty heightens the preventive function of the Act. Those "more significant infringements" have two intervals -- with the highest effect of the double royalty and with the "stabilized effect of the double royalty". But overall, in cases of "more significant infringements", the application of the double represents a heightening of the preventive power by a third and fifth respectively, and this is true only in the case, where the prospective infringers would try to calculate the effect of their infringement before infringing.

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.

The thesis deals with monetary remedies in intellectual property infringement suits, focusing on industrial property rights. On the background of enacting of the czech Act number 221/2006 Sb. which implements the directive 2004/48/EC of the European parliament and of the Council, the thesis compares these two texts with each other and also with the proposal for the directive KOM(2003) 46 final in their relevant parts. By doing this, it evaluates the directive and the czech act as the directive's implementation. This evaluation represents the secondary aims of the thesis. Comparison, analysis of factual articles and interviews with relevant experts practicising in the area show that by setting the damages as double the "customary" royalties, the czech Act in his § 5 ods. 2 represents a sanction, which confirms the hypothesis of the prevailance of an analogy between the czech provison and the punitive damages in american law. This fact creates scope for the hypothesis of existance of further analogies, the verification of which is the central aim of the thesis. Therefore, the second part of the thesis analyzes american provisions of the United States Code concerning copyright, trademark and patent law, and related caselaw. This is compared both to the directive and the proposal for it, moreover to the czech copyright Act number 121/2000 Sb. and in particular to the czech Act number 221/2006 Sb. The third part supplements the analysis of relevant czech court decisions. The second and third part identify similar and distinct elements of the provisions and reveal analogies in seemingly different institutes. Differences are spotted in the construct used to achieve the punitive function, furthermore between the terms "customary royalty" and "reasonable royalty" and also between the terms "bezdôvodné obohatenie", "infringer's profits" and "unjust enrichment". Conversely, an analogy is identified between the discretionary power of american courts to increase proven damages or determine statutory damages and the czech institute of "primerané zadosťučinenie" (appropriate satisfaction). The prevailance of prohibition of double recovery is another existing analogy between the american and czech law.