多方複審（IPR）程序自美國AIA修法施行以來，因其所耗時間與金錢相較專利無效訴訟較少，常被侵權訴訟中的被告，用以對抗並反制專利權人，且只要經PTAB通過立案決定，並進入IPR程序之審查階段，即有近8成專利至少一項請求項無效，因此專利在進入IPR程序後立案與否，也能作為該專利之品質的篩選。

因此，本研究收集2013年至2019年底之IPR案件，共10097件IPR案件，並篩選、去重做出立案決定之專利案件後，共3833件案件，並將專利案件依其IPR案件立案狀態，分為每次皆立案之專利與每次皆無立案。透過先前文獻與USPTO內部審核專利品質之指標，選出26個分別為專利申請階段、專利審查階段、專利核准階段與專利獲證後之變數，並透過統計分析方法，進一步判斷案件立案狀態與變數之間的原因，以求出可能影響IPR立案決定之變數。

本研究分別使用平均數t檢定、卡方獨立性分析、皮爾森積差相關分析與羅吉斯迴歸分析等統計方法，篩選掉不適用之變數，再針對案件狀態「從未在IPR被立案」與「至少立案過一次」之間、「每次在IPR皆被立案」與「至少沒有被立案過一次」之間建立模型，分別是為了找出選列的變數中，使專利不容易被立案的因素與容易被立案的因素，並整理與歸納迴歸係數具顯著之變數，並解釋變數的差異對案件狀態所造成之影響。

The inter partes review(IPR) procedure was enacted as part of the America Invents Act. Because IPR procedure takes less time and money than patent invalidation litigation, it is often used by defendants in infringement litigation to counter patent owners. And as long as the case is instituted by PTAB and enters the examination phase of the IPR procedure, there are nearly 80% of the patents, at least one of the claims is invalid. Therefore, after the patent enters the IPR procedure, the institution decision can also be used as a screening of the quality of the patent.

This study collected IPR cases from 2013 to the end of 2019, a total of 10097 IPR cases, and after screening and de-duplicating the patent cases that made the institution decision, a total of 3833 cases. According to the status of the IPR case, the patent cases are divided into patents that are instituted every time and patents that never instituted when filed in IPR procedure.Through the previous literature and the USPTO internal review of patent quality indicators, 26 variables were selected for the patent application stage, patent examination stage, patent approval stage and after the patent was granted. And through statistical analysis methods, to further determine the reason between the IPR case status and the variables, in order to find the variables that may affect the IPR institution decision.

In this study, statistical methods such as the mean t test, chi-square independence analysis, Pearson correlation analysis, and logistic regression analysis were used to establish models based on the IPR case status.Analyze the impact of patent variables of the case status.Sorting out and summarize the significant variables with regression coefficients, and the impact of variables to IPR institution decision.

中文
[1] 陳在方(2017)。美國專利紛爭解決之關鍵性變革——論美國專利複審程序的結構功能分析與實施成效。交大法學評論，第2期。
[2] 蔡順興(2014)。美國現有挑戰專利權有效性之程序。台一專利商標雜誌第197 期。
[3] 張仁平、王世賢、吳韶淳、羅彬秀(2018)。五邊局專利品質管理制度（下）―美歐中韓篇。智慧財產權月刊 VOL.231。
[4] 朱浩筠(2016)。美國專利舉發制度及其相關爭議問題簡介——以多方複審（IPR）案件為中心。智慧財產權月刊 VOL.213。
[5] 楊喻涵(2017)。美國專利多方複審程序立案決定之預測。國立臺灣大學資訊工程學研究所碩士論文。
[6] 王偉哲(2017)。美國發明法下之專利有效性── 以專利審理暨訴願委員會為中心。臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所學位論文。
[7] 蔡佳穎(2016)。美國專利多方複審程序與領證後複審程序之概述。科技法律透析, 28(4), 32-41。
[8] 卓承賢(2019)。從A輪融資資訊觀察新創企業後續發展之研究。國立臺灣科技大學專利研究所碩士論文。
英文
[1] Love, B. J., Miller, S. P., & Ambwani, S. (2019). Determinants of Patent Quality: Evidence from Inter Partes Review Proceedings. U. Colo. L. Rev., 90, 67.
[2] Marco, A. C., & Miller, R. D. (2019). Patent examination quality and litigation: is there a link?. International Journal of the economics of business, 26(1), 65-91.
[3] Criscuolo, P. (2006). The'home advantage'effect and patent families. A comparison of OECD triadic patents, the USPTO and the EPO. Scientometrics, 66(1), 23-41.
[4] KING, J. L. (2003), Patent Examination Procedures and Patent Quality, Wesley M. Cohen and Stephen A. Merrill eds., Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 54-73.
[5] Carley, M., Hedge, D., & Marco, A. (2015). What is the probability of receiving a US patent. Yale JL & Tech., 17, 203.
[6] Lemley, M. A., & Sampat, B. (2008). Is the patent office a rubber stamp. Emory LJ, 58, 181.
[7] Graham, S., & Hegde, D. (2015). Disclosing patents' secrets. Science, 347(6219), 236-237.
[8] Picard, P. M., & de la Potterie, B. V. P. (2013). Patent office governance and patent examination quality. Journal of Public Economics, 104, 14-25.
[9] Vishnubhakat, S., Rai, A. K., & Kesan, J. P. (2016). Strategic Decision Making in Dual PTAB and District Court Proceedings. Berkeley Tech. LJ, 31, 45.
[10] Charles. R. Macedo & Jung Hahm. (2014). Understanding PTAB Trials: Key Milestones in IPR, PGR and CBM Proceedings, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP, 5.
[11] Simpson, A. E., Love, B., & Schmitt, K. (2016). PTAB Data Analytics: Looking Behind the Numbers.
[12] Cohen, E. C. (2014). A primer on inter partes review, covered business method review, and post-grant review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Fed. Cir. BJ, 24, 1.
網路資料
[1] 蔣士棋(2019)。魔鬼藏在細節裡：如何使用IPR程序。北美智權報240期。參見：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPNC_190710_0501.htm（最後瀏覽日：2020/04/01）
[2] The Perryman Group. (2020). An Assessment of the Impact of the American Invents Act and Patent Trial and Appeal Board on the US Economy. 參見：https://www.perrymangroup.com/media/uploads/report/perryman-an-assessment-of-the-impact-of-the-american-invents-act-and-patent-trial-and-appeal-board-on-the-us-economy-06-2020.pdf（最後瀏覽日：2020/07/05）
[3] Unified Patents. (2020). PATENT QUALITY INITIATIVE. 參見：https://www.unifiedpatents.com/pqi（最後瀏覽日：2020/07/05）
[4] USPTO. (2018). Performance and Accountability Report FY 2018, p.9. 參見：https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTOFY18PAR.pdf（最後瀏覽日：2020/2/15）
[5] USPTO. (2020). USPTO Patent Examiner Brochur. 參見：https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Examiner%20brochure%202020%2011x17%20printable_NEW%20salary%20table.pdf（最後瀏覽日：2020/2/15）
[6] USPTO. (2020). Patent Office Professional Association, Signatory Authority. 參見：http://www.popa.org/about/advocacy/signatory-authority-1/（最後瀏覽日：2020/2/15）
[7] USPTO. (2020). About the Office of Patent Quality Assurance. 參見：https://www.uspto.gov/patent/office-patent-quality-assurance-0#step1（最後瀏覽日：2020/2/16）
[8] USPTO. (2020). Quality Metrics. 參見：https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/quality-metrics-1（最後瀏覽日：2020/2/16）
[9] USPTO. (2020). Statutory Compliance Master Review Form，參見：https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/MRF-Current.pdf（最後瀏覽日：2020/2/16）
[10] USPTO. Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative. 參見：http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/enhanced-patent-quality-initiative-0（最後瀏覽日：2020/2/16）
[11] USPTO. (2013). QIR Items Used in Patent Quality Composite. 參見：https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/init_events/Quality_Index_Reporting_(QIR)_Variables_for_Patent_Quality_Composite.pdf（最後瀏覽日：2020/2/16）
[12] 黃蘭閔(2013)。淺談美國Ex Parte Reexamination程序。北美智權報92期。參見：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Laws/US-80.htm（最後瀏覽日：2020/2/18）
[13] USPTO. (2018). PTAB Motion to Amend Study. 參見：https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ptab_%20mta_study_%28installment_5_-_%20update_through_fy2018%29.pdf（最後瀏覽日：2020年3月2日）
[14] Unified Patent. Success at challenging bad patents. 參見https://www.unifiedpatents.com/success（最後瀏覽日：2020年4月15日）