研究生: |
王耀德 yao-de Wang |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
從CAFC之見解解析專利品質提升原則 Resolve patent quality improvement principles of the opinion from the CAFC |
指導教授: |
耿筠
Yun Ken |
口試委員: |
袁建中
Chien-Chung Yuan 陳昭華 Jau-Hwa Chen |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
應用科技學院 - 專利研究所 Graduate Institute of Patent |
論文出版年: | 2015 |
畢業學年度: | 103 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 65 |
中文關鍵詞: | 專利品質 、引證 、CAFC判決 |
外文關鍵詞: | patent quality, citation, CAFC ruling |
相關次數: | 點閱:732 下載:1 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
隨著台灣的專利權人越來越重視在美國智慧財產局專利之專利,在申請的比例越來越高,舉發無效及侵權訴訟頻繁年代如何確保自己擁有的專利不被舉發無效,或是在其專利權受到侵害時受到較完整的保護,所以在專利文件的申請及撰寫上如何清楚的介定保護的範圍相當的重要,所以本研究之研究重點採用三個方法找出美國聯邦巡迴上诉法院CAFC中三個對我國產業之智慧財產議題具影響力代表性判決,最後再與專利說明書做比對進而得到提升專利品質在申請撰寫上之建議,其中主要為三個方法分成七個階段:第一方法為找出台灣在CAFC之判決,第二方法為找出各個年代中CAFC高引證之判決,第三方法為用語料庫分析從主要訴訟議題中找出高被引及高引用之判決,而第一階段為蒐集CAFC 的判決書為主,其判決書年代落於1983至2014年共31年間,第二階段是利用合適線上法律資源從裡面抓出CAFC在31年間判決書並從當中找出台灣在美國之判決,第三階段找出判決中在專利方面主要之訴訟議題並加以歸類整理,第四階段將主要之訴訟議題使用語料庫分析找出常見之訴訟議題,第五階段找出各訴訟議題中高引用之案件找出第二案,第六階段從語料庫分析的資料中找出主要案件中引用及被引用之狀況,找出第三案例,第七階段將代表性判決法官對請求項見解相互與說明書做比對再得出相對應之結論,並提出專利品質提升原則之建議。
With the Taiwanese patentees’ increasing emphasis on the patent applied from Intellectual Property Office in the United States, the proportion of patent application has become higher and higher. In the era of frequent infringement litigation, to ensure our own patent not to be denounced ineffective or to completely protect the patent when being infringed make the patent application and how to clearly identify the scope of protection in writing documents rather important. As a consequence, in this research we adopt three ways to find out three representative verdicts of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CAFC, which have great impact on the issue of intellectual property in Taiwan. In the end, we will compare the result with patent specification and thus enhance the patent quality in writing patent application. The three main methods are divided into seven stages. The first method is to find out Taiwan judgments in CAFC. The second method is to find out CAFC high citation judgments in every era. The third method is to find out highly cited and high citation judgments from the main litigation issues by corpus analysis. Furthermore, the first stage is mainly about collecting CAFC court’s judgments from 1983 to 2014. The second stage is to identify CAFC court’s judgments by employing appropriate online legal resources and find out judgments of Taiwan in the United States. The third stage is to find out the main litigation issues in patent from the judgments and categorize them. The forth stage is to figure out the common litigation issues by corpus analysis. The fifth stage is to find out the second case of high citation cases in every litigation issues. The sixth stage is to identify the main cases and the situation in the cited references from the corpus analysis of the data and find the third case. The seventh stage is to compare the representative judgments and the judge’s insight of the request with the description and re-draw the corresponding conclusions, and thus put forward the advising principle of patent quality improvement.
中文文獻
[1] 林佩靜(2014),運用語料庫分析進行歷時性議題演進之研究與探討。
[2] 郭仲偉 (1989),非顯而易知性要件(進步性要件) 。
[3] 耿筠(2014),美國專利6,131,125專利權利佈局之解析(上)。
[4] 耿筠(2014),美國專利6,131,125專利權利佈局之解析(下)。
[5] 曾勝珍(2008),智慧財產權論叢,五南書局。
[6] 劉國讚(2003),專利權範圍之解釋與侵害,元照出版社。
學位論文
[1] 陳柏諺(2011),美國上訴法院對專利訴訟損害賠償之見解觀點演變研究,國立雲林科技大學企業管理系碩士班碩士論文。
[2] 黃國忠(2009),交通案例與廢棄物清理案例之量刑因素資訊整合實驗-以犯後態度與犯罪所生之損害為例,國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士在職專班碩士論文。
[3] 廖吟豐(2011),Acacia公司專利收購特徵之研究,國立雲林科技大學企業管理系碩士班碩士論文。
期刊論文
[1] John R. Allison,Mark A. Lemley,Kimberly A. Moore and R. Derek Trunkey(2003),Valuable Patents, University of California at Berkeley, School of Law.
[2] Michael Risch(2015), A GENERATION OF PATENT LITIGATION:
OUTCOMES AND PATENT QUALITY, FORTHCOMING SAN DIEGO LAW REVIEW.
[3] R. Polk Wagner(2009), Understanding Patent Quality Mechanisms, University of Pennsylvania Law School.
[4] Stuart J. H. Graham,Bronwyn H. Hall,Dietmar Harhoff,David C. Mowery(2002), POST-ISSUE PATENT “QUALITY CONTROL”: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF US, NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES.
網路資料
[1]百度百科方向盤鎖之介紹,http://baike.baidu.com/view/2885489.htm(最後瀏覽日期2015/05/3)
[2]中華百科全書法律審之介紹,http://ap6.pccu.edu.tw/Encyclopedia/data.asp?id=1659(最後瀏覽日期2014/12/30)
[3]馮震宇(2010),評論美國最高法院Festo案,http://www.cnfi.org.tw/cnfi/ipr/36-67/42-2.pdf(最後瀏覽日期2015/06/20)
[4]北美智權報-由美國專利訴訟案件量看NPE近期變化,http://tw.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/publish-118.htm#1(最後瀏覽日期2015/05/03)
[5]聯合新聞網: 台灣專利拉警報! 美、中成台灣前30大專利申請企業專利佈局重心,http://udn.com/news/story/6871/533141(最後瀏覽日期2015/05/22)
[6]科技產業資訊室,http://cdnet.stpi.narl.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2014/pclass_14_A268.htm(最後瀏覽日期2014/9/01)
[7]聖島國際智慧財產權實務報導,http://www.saint-island.com.tw/report/data/IPR_200511.htm(最後瀏覽日期2014/11/03)
[8] 李珍權(2011), 從美國KSR 案談美國軟體專利保護新趨勢(上),http://www.chainye.com/c_law03_detail.asp?ids=21(最後瀏覽日期2014/12/25)
[9]張明海(2007),先前技術核駁的答辯,http://mhchang.blog.ntu.edu.tw/2007/01/27/%E5%85%88%E5%89%8D%E6%8A%80%E8%A1%93%E6%A0%B8%E9%A7%81%E7%9A%84%E7%AD%94%E8%BE%AF/(最後瀏覽日期2014/12/1)
[10] Maynard Chang(2007) ,先前技術核駁的答辯,http://usipl.blogspot.tw/2007/01/blog-post.html(最後瀏覽日期2015/1/20)
判決書目
[1] EDWARD H. PHILLIPS v. AWH CORPORATION, HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC., and LOFTON CORPORATION(2005),415 F.3d 1303。
[2] TELEFLEX, INC v. FICOSA NORTH AMERICA CORP., Fico Cables, S.A., and Ficosa North America S.A. De C.V.(2002),299 F.3d 1313。
[3]Winans v.Denmead(1853),56 U.S. 15 How. 330 330 。
[4]Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co( 1898),170 U.S. 537。
[5]WINNER INTERNATIONAL ROYALTY CORPORATION v.Ching–Rong WANG(1853), 202 F.3d 1340。