本研究旨在探討涉訟專利之特徵，特別是分析依變數(專利涉訟歷史)與主要變數(被引證次數、平均被引證次數與審查官被引證次數)之間的關係，並檢驗被引證次數等變數，是否能夠解釋、預測專利訴訟之機率。本研究範疇選定ICT產業中三家國際企業(高通、博通、蘋果)所持有之專利為研究樣本，蒐集2001年至2018年間的美國發明專利，其樣本總數為70,327件專利，渉訟專利為402件，非涉訟專利69,925件。參考相關領域之學者，設立三個研究假說(H1：涉訟專利相對於非涉訟專利擁有較多被引證數；H2：涉訟專利相對於非涉訟專利擁有較多平均被引證數；H3：涉訟專利相對於非涉訟專利擁有較多審查官被引證數)，本研究資料分析方法使用敘述性統計、獨立樣本t檢定、皮爾森相關係數(Pearson’s r)、羅吉斯迴歸(logistic regression)等統計方式，其分析結果指出，主要變數在涉訟專利的平均值皆大於非涉訟專利，且t檢定也呈顯著性；羅吉斯迴歸模型分中，因主要變數互共線性高，故分別使用三個迴歸模型加以分析，結果指出，主要變數與訴訟機率均為顯著性，表示主要變數的增加，會提高訴訟機率的風險。故三個研究假說均獲得支持，表示涉訟專利擁有較多的被引證次數、平均被引證次數與審查官被引證次數。

This research aimed to discuss the traits of litigated patents, especially the relation between the dependent variable (patent litigation history) and the independent variables (the number of forward citations, adjusted forward citations, and examiner's forward citations), and moreover to exam whether the dependent variable could be explained by the independent variables. Patents from ICT-related companies (Qualcomm, Broadcom, and Apple) were viewed as samples in this research and were collected specifically for US utility patents between 2001 to 2018, meaning there were 70,327 patents in total, 402 were litigated, 69,925 were non-litigated patents. Relative references were reviewed and followed by the three hypotheses, which were: H1: the number of forward citations is more in litigated patents than that in non-litigated, H2: the number of adjusted forward citations is more in litigated patents than that in non-litigated, H3: the number of examiner’s forward citations is more in litigated patents than that in non-litigated. Description analysis, two-sample t test, Pearson’s r, and logistic regression were adopted into this research. The results indicated that the means of three independent variables were higher in the group of litigated patents and were significant in t test. In the analysis of logistic regression, due to the high level of collinear among the three independent variables, three regression models were respectively conducted. The figures showed that three independent variables were significant with the dependent variable, which meant the more numbers of the forward citations (or adjusted forward citation or examiner’s forward citation) are, the higher risk the patents could get involved in litigations. In conclusion, three hypotheses were fully supported by the analysis, in other words, litigated patents do have more forward citations, adjusted forward citations, and examiner’s forward citations.

[中文文獻]
期刊
洪瑞章 (2004)，美國專利行政救濟之制度與實務簡介，智慧財產月刊，69期，25-26。

專書
毛金生、陳燕、李勝軍、謝小勇 (2017)，專利運營實務，北京市：智慧財產出版社。

李雅明 (2012)，從半導體看世界，臺北市：天下遠見出版股份有限公司。

邱皓正 (2010)，量化研究與統計分析：SPSS(PASW)資料分析範例解析 (第五版)，臺北市：五南文化圖書出版股份有限公司。

張紹勳 (2018)，邏輯斯迴歸及離散選擇模型─應用STaTa統計，臺北市：五南文化圖書出版股份有限公司。

陳淼勝、李德治 (2010)，統計學概論，臺北縣三重市：前程文化事業有限公司。

陳順宇 (2009)，迴歸分析(第四版)，臺北市：三民書局。

劉國棟 (2009)，電子產業，懂這些就夠!，臺北市：大是文化有限公司。

劉國讚 (2018)，國際專利分析與布局，臺北市：元照出版有限公司。

研究報告
彭茂榮 (2018年11月)。展望未來剖析全球半導體產業關鍵發展，彭茂榮 (主持人)，B1 半導體，眺望~2019產業發展趨勢研討會B1半導體，台大醫院國際會議中心。

網路資料
工研院資通所產經中心，全球行動通訊技術專利授權模式分析，取自https://std-share.itri.org.tw/Content/Files/Industry/Files/%E5%85%A8%E7%90%83%E8%A1%8C%E5%8B%95%E9%80%9A%E8%A8%8A%E6%8A%80%E8%A1%93%E5%B0%88%E5%88%A9%E6%8E%88%E6%AC%8A%E6%A8%A1%E5%BC%8F%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90.pdf (最後瀏覽日：2019年12月19日)。

中華民國行政院主計處 (2019)，什麼是「ICT產業」？如何計算？，取自https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/fp.asp?xItem=30488&ctNode=2370 (最後瀏覽日：2019年12月19日)。

朱子亮 (2017)，頻解碼技術專利訴訟 博通控告聯發科、晨星、LG等，取自http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=13340 (最後瀏覽日：2019年12月19日)。

涂志豪 (2017)，博通擠下高通 成IC設計霸主，取自https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20170516000111-260204?chdtv (最後瀏覽日：2019年12月19日)。

高敬原 (2018)，收購高通的神秘華人，半導體界兇猛大鱷是他─博通CEO陳福陽，取自https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/48472/the-unorthodox-gambit-of-hock-tan-chief-executive-of-broadcom (最後瀏覽日：2019年12月19日)。

經濟部智慧財產局 (2019)，中華民國IPC分類號查詢之2019.01版本之解釋，取自https://www1.tipo.gov.tw/sp.asp?xdurl=mp/lpipcFull.asp&ctNode=7231&mp=1 (最後瀏覽日期2019年11月02日)。

蕭麗君 (2019)，違反市場壟斷 高通遭判收取專利權利金，取自https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20190522004559-260410?chdtv (最後瀏覽日：2019年12月19日)。

賴景昌、林國仕 (2004)，知識經濟，取自https://scitechvista.nat.gov.tw/c/19jt.htm (最後瀏覽日：2019年12月19日)。

藍立晴 (2017)，博通是誰?為何要買下競爭對手高通?，取自https://cnews.com.tw/002171107-4/ (最後瀏覽日：2019年12月19日)。

顏嘉南、綜合外電 (2019)，蘋果判賠3,100萬美元 iPhone侵犯高通三項專利，取自https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20190317000228-260203?chdtv (最後瀏覽日：2019年12月19日)。

Lynn (2017)，ㄧ看就懂的IC產業結構與競爭關係，取自https://kopu.chat/2017/04/08/ic-industry/ (最後瀏覽日：2019年12月19日)。

Lynn (2017)，掌控你手機晶片與通訊技術的霸主高通－通訊 3G 篇，取自https://kopu.chat/2017/05/05/3g/ (最後瀏覽日：2019年12月27日)。

[English Reference]

Journal
Alcácer, J., Gittelman, M., & Sampat, B. (2009). Applicant and examiner citations in US patents: An overview and analysis. Research Policy, 38(2), 415-427.

Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., & Trunkey, R. D. (2003). Valuable patents. Geo. Lj, 92, 435.

Bessen, J. (2008). The value of US patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy, 37(5), 932-945.

Chang, Y. H., Yang, W. G., & Lai, K. K. (2010). Valuable patent or not? Depends on the combination of internal patent family and external citation. In Picmet 2010 Technology Management for Global Economic Growth, 1-6.

Chien, C. V. (2011). Predicting patent litigation. Tex. L. Rev., 90, 283.

Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not), National Bureau of Economic Research, No. w7552.

Fisch, C., Sandner, P., & Regner, L. (2017). The value of Chinese patents: An empirical investigation of citation lags. China Economic Review, 45, 22-34.

Hegde, D., & Sampat, B. (2009). Examiner citations, applicant citations, and the private value of patents. Economics Letters, 105(3), 287-289.

Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, 319-333.

Marco, A. C., Carley, M., Jackson, S., & Myers, A. (2015). The USPTO historical patent data files: two centuries of innovation. Available at SSRN 2616724.

Meyer, M. (2000). What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 49(1), 93-123.

Su, H. N., Chen, C. M. L., & Lee, P. C. (2012). Patent litigation precaution method: Analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010. Scientometrics, 92(1), 181-195.

Thompson, P. (2006). Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: Evidence from inventor-and examiner-added citations. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(2), 383-388.

Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and new technology, 5(1), 19-50.

Online Internet Reference
OECD. (2005). Knowledge-based Economy. Retrieved from https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6864 (last visited on Dec. 19, 2019).

IC Insights. (2018). Fabless IC Company Sales Top $100 Billion for First Time Ever. Retrieved from http://www.icinsights.com/news/bulletins/Fabless-IC-Company-Sales-Top-100-Billion-For-First-Time-Ever/ (last visited on Dec. 19, 2019).

European Patent Office. (2019). INPADOC extended patent families. Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/helpful-resources/first-time-here/patent-families/inpadoc.html (last visited Oct. 15, 2019).

European Patent Office. (2019). Patent families. Retrieved from https://worldwide.espacenet.com/help?locale=en_EP&method=handleHelpTopic&topic=patentfamily (last visited Oct. 15, 2019).

European Patent Office. (2019). DOCDB simple patent family. Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/helpful-resources/first-time-here/patent-families/docdb.html (last visited Oct. 15, 2019).

Matt Weinberger. (2019). 33 photos of the rise and fall of Apple in its earliest days. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-apple-in-photos-2017-3 (last visited on Dec. 26, 2019).

RPX. (2019). Company introduction. Retrieved from https://www.rpxcorp.com/about/ (last visited on Oct. 10, 2019).

RPX. (2019). Insight entity search. Retrieved from https://insight.rpxcorp.com/ (last visited on Oct, 10, 2019).

Law and Regulation
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (2019). chapter 0600 section 609.

37 CFR §1.56 (2019)

Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (2019). chapter 0700 section 707.05 (e).

37 CFR §1.104 (2019).

37 C.F.R. 3.73(a) (2012).