專利制度主要是為了鼓勵從事發明，給予專利權人發明之排他權，藉此提昇產業
創新能力以促進產業、社會之發展。然而，當專利權人過度行使其權利，超越了鼓勵
創新之原始目的，就會產生專利權濫用行為。本研究為了解美國專利權濫用之發展，
透過分析過往專利權濫用之重要判決以觀察美國法院對於專利權濫用見解的演進趨
勢。
本研究自Westlaw 法學資料庫，取得1900 年至2015 年間，美國最高法院及聯邦
巡迴上訴法院專利權濫用相關之判決，利用判決間互相引證的關係，以主路徑分析法
將路徑上重要的判決找出，觀察近百年來專利權濫用的走向及趨勢。接著透過集群分
析法將判決進行分群，從中了解近期專利權濫用的主要類型是否產生變化。
研究發現美國法院之專利權濫用判例可以分為四個階段，其分界點分別為1942
年美國最高法院首次使用「專利權濫用」一詞，1952 年美國國會修正相關專利法，
以及1988 年美國國會增訂相關專利法。透過集群分析也可看出，專利權濫用的類型
具有時代性，部分特殊的專利權濫用類型之相關法律見解及發生量在過去曾經呈現穩
定發展，但在近幾年來專利權濫用主要的判決類型有所變化卻產生了不同的變化。

The main purpose of patent system is to encourage people to engage in invention, thereby increasing the capacity of innovation and developing industries, by granting them a set of exclusive rights during a limited period. However, when patentees unlawfully extend the scope of patent beyond the rights, patent misuse occurred. To understand the development and trend of patent misuse, this study shows judicial opinions about patent misuse from past to present by analyzing law cases.
This study acquired cases from Supreme Court of the United States and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from Westlaw legal database, from 1900 to 2015. Using the relationship between citing and cited cases, it could be found the important cases of patent misuse in history by main path analysis, which depicted the critical data in network. In addition, to figure out whether main types of patent misuse change or not currently, this study used edge-betweenness clustering to classify all cases into several
groups.
The development of patent misuse history could be identified into four stages, with three dividing points. In 1942, the term “patent misuse” appeared in the Supreme Court for the first time. In 1952, Congress overhauled related provisions of Patent Act. In 1988, the Patent Misuse Reform Act enacted. Furthermore, through the edge-betweenness clustering,
we also found the characteristics of patent misuse may reflect the time. Some judicial opinion of patent misuse developed steadily in a period of time, but changed tremendously these days.

1. Batagelj, V. (2003). Efficient Algorithms for Citation Network Analysis. Computing Research Repository.
2. Bessen, J., Ford, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2011). The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls. Boston University School of Law, 11(45 ).
3. Chien, C. V. (2012). Patent Assertion Entities. Santa Clara University.
4. Durham, A. L. (2013). Patent Law Essentials: A Concise Guide: Praeger.
5. Girvan, M., & Newman, M. E. J. (2002). Community structure in social and
biological networks,. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(12).
6. Hagiu, A., & Yoffie, D. B. (2013). The New Patent Intermediaries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 45-66.
7. Hill, B. D. (2012). Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n: Patent Misuse No Longer a Deterrent to Anticompetitive Behavior in the Group Venture Context. Journal of Business and Technology Law, 7(2), 368-370.
8. Hovenkamp, H., Janis, M. D., & Lemley, M. A. (2002). Ip and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law (Vol. 1): Aspen Law & Business.
9. Hummon, N. P., & Doreian, P. (1989). Connectivity in a Citation Network: The development of DNA Theory. Social Networks, 11.
10. Jones, A. (2013). Tech Firms Back Obama Patent Move. The Wall Street Journal.
11. Lemley, M. A. (2008). Are Universities Patent Trolls? Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 18, 611.
12. Lim, D. (2013). Patent Misuse and Antitrust Law: Empirical, Doctrinal and Policy Perspectives Edward Elgar Pub.
13. 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.
14. Liu, J. S., & Lu, Y. 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).
15. Merges, R. P. (2009). The Trouble With Trolls: Innovation, Rent-Seeking and Patent Law Reform. Berkeley Law, 24, 1590-1591.
16. Merges, R. P., & Duffy, J. F. (2013). Patent Law and Policy: Cases & Materials: LEXISNEXIS.
17. Michel, P. R. (2011). Interview With Chief Judge Paul R. Michel On US Patent Reform. Retrieved from
http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/07/14/interview-with-chief-judge-paul-r-michel-on-uspatent-reform/
18. Mullin, J. (2013). How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail. Retrieved from
19. Newman, M. E. J. (2006). Modularity and Community Structure in Networks.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 8578-8580.
20. Quinn, G. (2015). Understanding the Valuable Role Played by Patent Trolls. Retrieved from ：
21. 何愛文. (2003). 論專利法制與競爭法制之關係－從保護專利權之正當性談起. 國立臺灣大學.
22. 何曜任. (2011). 美國法專利權濫用理論對我國法之啟示. 智慧財產評論, 9(2), 10.
23. 李羽晨. (2014). 主路徑研究方法與傳統法學研究方法之比較與分析:以商標淡化為例. (碩士), 國立台灣科技大學.
24. 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), 國立雲林科技大學.
25. 周永信. 論專利授權搭售與公平交易法之關係. (碩士), 國防管理學院, 1998.
26. 林立峰. (2014). 專利制度對專利蟑螂之管制. (碩士), 國立中正大學.
27. 林詩凱. (2015). 以引證分析探討美國法院見解之演變與趨勢─以專利權濫用為例. (碩士), 國立台灣科技大學.
28. 林鈺珊. (2009). 論專利權濫用. (碩士), 國立交通大學.
29. 邱詩茜. (2006). 從專利獨占之制度目的設計角度定義公平交易法第四十五條之專利權正當行使行為—以美國法制為借鏡. (碩士), 國立政治大學.
30. 范建得, 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, 15(2), 1-39.
31. 范建得, 陳丁章, 江國慶, 宋皇志, & 錢逸霖. (2006). 面對專利戰爭的「新」思維:新學林.
32. 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), 國立雲林科技大學.
33. 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.
34. 傅松青. (2012). 論美國專利授權契約之搭售與專利權濫用. 智慧財產評論, 10(1), 88.
35. 楊景婷. (2007). 論專利權濫用原則. 司法新聲, 42, 1658-1659.
36. 劉育彬, 黃文賢, & 施錫龍. (2007). 淺談專利濫用（Patent Misuse）. 國研科技, 16.
37. 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), 國立雲林科技大學.
38. 邊德明. (2013). 論專利濫用與非專利實體. (碩士), 東吳大學.