法學實證研究以系統化方式探索法院的實務運作，較傳統法學研究更貼近實務與較宏觀的視野，使其逐漸受到法學界矚目。其中以引證分析是較多學者認為可快速掌握法律議題的方法之一。然而，截至目前為止甚少研究在法學實證研究的架構下，利用引證分析方法探討法律議題，特別是結合眾多法律現象之議題。因此本研究提出以引證分析為基礎之方法，結合主路徑分析與集群分析，以美國法院對於專利權濫用實務見解之演變為例，探索將引證分析運用於法學實證研究之合適性。
本研究自電子資料庫Westlaw取得美國最高法院與聯邦巡迴上訴法院關於專利權濫用之判決，共計232篇。依據判決間交互引用關係建立引證網路，然後利用主路徑分析方法，描繪美國法院對於專利權濫用見解演化路徑圖。此外，利用集群分析方法解析「專利權濫用」所包含之各種法律現象。最後將分析結果比對過往文獻結果，探討兩者契合度。
本研究發現經由主路徑分析方法所擷取之關鍵判決與過去文獻所提及之重要判決相吻合；集群分析結果也與過往學者專家所做分類有顯著的相似性，且能指出目前較具爭議性的議題，總結而言，法學實證研究結合引證分析方法能夠以快速且有效率的方式輔助法學研究。

This study examined the applicableness of empirical legal study with using citation analysis. Empirical Legal Study is a systematic way to explore the practical operation of the court. Compared with traditional legal studies, empirical legal study provides the researchers with a more practical and wide perspective result. Therefore, more and more researchers in legal field are going to take account of using the research method of Empirical Legal Study for legal research. Especially, citation analysis method is one of empirical legal study method. Citation analysis method provides the researcher to figure out the development of legal issue in a faster way. However, few researchers discussed a legal issue in empirical legal studies structure by using citation analysis. This study is going to use main path method and cluster analysis to discuss evolutionary opinion of court decision about patent misuse. This study collects the 232 legal cases about patent misuse form Westlaw legal database to construct the citation network, and applies main path method and cluster analysis to investigate evolutionary opinion of court decision about patent misuse. The results show that evolutionary opinion of court decision can be tracked by main path method, and verity legal phenomenon under patent misuse issue can be classified by cluster analysis. Furthermore, the results also show that it is a faster and more efficient way for researchers to find the important literatures. In summary, applying citation analysis method in empirical legal study is conductive to legal research.

中文文獻
1.何曜任. (2011). 美國法專利權濫用理論對我國法之示.
2.吳德美. (2009). 以法律引證衡量判決書特性之可行性研究. (碩士), 國立雲林科技大學, 雲林縣.
3.李羽晨. (2014). 主路徑方法與傳統法學研究方法之比較:以商標淡化為例. (碩士), 國立臺灣科技大學, 台北市.
4.李育儒. (2009). 以法律引證建構判決書分類之可行性研究. (碩士), 雲林科技大學, 雲林縣.
5.李明彰. (2012). 以主路徑分析方法探討美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決書關鍵引用路徑之研究. (碩士), 雲林科技大學, 雲林縣.
6.周筱涵. (2012). 公平交易法有關智慧財產權排除條款之適用-論專利權濫用範疇. (碩士), 逢甲大學, 台中市.
7.林孟勳. (2010). 專利判決書分類與其生命週期之探討. (碩士), 雲林科技大學, 雲林縣.
8.林漢明. (2011). 專利權濫用之研究–以系統晶片關鍵技術授權契約為例. (碩士), 國立清華大學, 新竹市.
9.洪志勳. (2007). 軟體專利爭訟案例之分析與制度發展之研究. (碩士), 國立交通大學, 新竹市.
10.洪麗君. (2011). 專利權誤用(Patent Misuse Doctrine)之探討---由荷蘭皇家飛利浦電子公司控巨擘科技公司使用專利權權利金案談起. (碩士), 東吳大學, 台北市.
11.范建德, 莊春發, & 錢逸霖. (2007). 管制與競爭：論專利權之濫用. 公平交易季刊，第15卷第2期, 1-39.
12.許文齡. (2014). 專利判決書分類之研究-以美國上訴法院聯邦巡迴庭為例. (博士), 雲林科技大學, 雲林縣.
13.許立穎. (2015). 論專利主張實體爭議與美國專利法制改革─以台灣電子業專利訴訟為核心. (碩士), 國立清華大學.
14.黃國昌. (2009). 法學實證研究方法初探.
15.劉芳宇. (2014). 專利主張實體問題之研究─以美國經驗為借鏡. (碩士), 國立中央大學, 桃園縣.
16.鄭義耀. (2011). 美國上訴法院對專利訴訟確認之訴之見解觀點演變研究. (碩士), 雲林科技大學, 雲林縣.
17.謝銘洋. (1995). 由華康與文鼎案談專利權之濫用. 月旦法學雜誌第 1 期, 80.
18.謝銘洋, 楊擴舉, & 林佳瑩. (2002). 植物品種專利的的侵權事件與案件解析. Paper presented at the 專利法保護植物品種法治趨勢研討會議.
19.顏呈融. (2012). 美國上訴法院對專利訴訟非顯而易見性見解觀點演變之研究. (碩士), 雲林科技大學, 雲林縣.
英文文獻
1.Barr, C. (2011). License to Collude: Patent Pools, the Patent Misuse Doctrine, and Princo. UCDL Rev., 45, 629.
2.Batagelj, V. (2003). Efficient algorithms for citation network analysis. arXiv preprint cs/0309023.
3.Batagelj, V., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (1992). Direct and indirect methods for structural equivalence. Social Networks, 14(1), 63-90.
4.Bureau of International Information Programs, U. S. D. o. S. (2004). Outline of the United States legal system.
5.. Chapter 8E. Antitrust and Misuse. (2015) Eckstrom's Licensing in Foreign and Domestic Operations.
6.. Chapter 56. MONOPOLIES, ANTITRUST AND UNFAIR COMPETITION V. CONTRACTS, COMBINATIONS AND AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE G. MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS § 5027.10. Relationship between the patent and antitrust laws—Patent misuse (2015) Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations.
7.Chisum, D. S. (1996). Chisum on Patents.
8.Clapp, N. A. (1952). Some Recent Developments in Patent-Antitrust Law. Marq. L. Rev., 36, 143.
9.Eisenberg, T. (2000). Empirical Methods And the Law. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 665-667.
10.Fowler, J. H., & Jeon, S. (2008). The authority of Supreme Court precedent. Social Networks, 30(1), 16-30.
11.Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball Sampling. 148-170. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177705148
12.Gutterman, A. S. (2015). Legal Compliance Checkups: Business Clients.
13.Gutterman, A. S., & West. (2015). Corporate Counsel's Guide to Technology Management and Transactions: Thomson/West.
14.Harvard Law Review Association, Association, C. L. R., Journal, Y. L., & Association, Y. L. R. (2015). The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation: Harvard Law Review Association.
15.Hoerner, R. J. (1990). Patent Misuse: Portents for the 1990s. Antitrust Law Journal, 687-715.
16.Holmes, W. C. (2015). Holmes, Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law.
17.Hummon, N. P., & Dereian, P. (1989). Connectivity in a citation network: The development of DNA theory. Social Networks, 11(1), 39-63.
18.Kiklis, M. L., Law, W. K., & Business. (2014). The Supreme Court on Patent Law: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
19.Lim, D. (2013a). Patent Misuse and Antitrust Law: Empirical, Doctrinal and Policy Perspectives.
20.Lim, D. (2013b). Patent Misuse and Antitrust: Rebirth or False Dawn. Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev., 20, 299.
21.Liu, J. S., Chen, H. H., Ho, M. H. C., & Li, Y. C. (2014). Citations with different levels of relevancy: Tracing the main paths of legal opinions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(12), 2479-2488.
22.Liu, J. S., & Lu, L. Y. (2012). An integrated approach for main path analysis: Development of the Hirsch index as an example. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 528-542.
23.Louis Altman, M. P. (2015a). The patent monopoly and the antitrust laws-Misuse of patent rights Callmann on Unfair Competition, Trademarks, and Monopolies (Vol. 4:57).
24.Louis Altman, M. P. (2015b). The patent monopoly and the antitrust laws-The legality of license agreements Callmann on Unfair Competition, Trademarks, and Monopolies (Vol. 4:56).
25.Merges, R. P., & Duffy, J. F. (2011). Patent law and policy: Cases and materials (fifth ed.): LexisNexis.
26.Moy, R. C. (2015). Moy's Walker on Patents.
27.Newman, M. E., & Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical review E, 69(2), 026113.
28.Nimmer, R. T., & Dodd, J. C. (2015). Modern Licensing Law: Thomson West.
29.. Price fixing in patent license agreements. (2015) American Jurisprudence (Second Edition ed., Vol. 84).
30.Product Distribution and Marketing. (2014). The American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education.
31.Reynolds, S. P. (1997). Antitrust and Patent Licensing: Cycles of Enforcement and Current Policy. Jurimetrics, 129-148.
32.Roban, R. (2009). Using KeyCite On Westlaw. U.S.A.
33.Robert A. Matthews, J. (2015). Annotated Patent Digest.
34.Salganik, M. J., & Heckathorn, D. D. (2004). Sampling and Estimation in Hidden Populations Using Respondent-Driven Sampling. Sociological Methodology, 34(1), 193-240. doi: 10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00152.x
35.Schlicher, J. W. (2015). Patent Law: Legal & Economic Principles.
36.Spencer Weber Waller, A. F. (2014). Antitrust and American Business Abroad.
37.Stidham, R., & Carp, R. A. (2001). Judicial Process in America.
38.Ward Jr, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American statistical association, 58(301), 236-244.
美國判決
1.Automatic Radio Mfg. Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc, 339 U.S. 827, (1950)
2.Bauer & Cie v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1, (1913)
3.BB Chemical Co. v. Ellis, 314 U.S. 495, (1942)
4.Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, (2010)
5.Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29, (1964)
6.Carbice Corporation of America v. American Patents Development Corporation, 283 U.S. 27, (1931)
7.Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co, 448 U.S. 176, (1980)
8.eBay Inc. v. MERCEXCHANGE, LL, 547 U.S. 388, (2006)
9.Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 439, (1940)
10.Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, (1932)
11.Henry v. A.B. Dick Co, 224 U.S. 1, (1912)
12.Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc, 547 U.S. 28, (2006)
13.International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, (1947)
14.Leitch Mfg. Co. v. Barber Co, 302 U.S. 458, (1938)
15.Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U.S. 661, (1944)
16.Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co. , 314 U.S. 488 (1942)
17.Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917)
18.Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, (1958)
19.A. & P. TEA CO. v. Supermarket Corp, 340 U.S. 147, (1950)
20.Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 337 U.S. 293, (1949)
21.Strait v. National Harrow Co., 51 F. 819, (1892)
22.United States v. Masonite Corp, 316 U.S. 265, (1942)
23.Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc, 395 U.S. 100, (1969)
網路資料
1.1st Half 2015 Patent Dispute Report. (2015, 2015/12/22). from http://unifiedpatents.com/1st-half-2015-patent-dispute-report/
2.Patent Abuse Reduction Act of 2013, S.1013. (2013). Retrieved 8/20, 2015, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1013?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22patent+abuse+reduction+act%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=1
3.PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2012). 2012 Patent Litigation Study Litigation continues to rise amid growing awareness of patent value Retrieved 8/20, 2015, from http://patentlyo.com/media/docs/2013/03/2012-patent-litigation-study.pdf