在美國專利制度中，專利權人於申請專利時有責任與義務將所知悉會影響可專利性的的重要資訊公正且誠實地呈報給專利商標局，一旦違反此原則，往後請求保障自己的專利權時有可能會面臨「不正行為」的指控，一旦確立後專利權將無法行使，因此，如何避免落入不正行為的泥淖中對專利權人而言是必須且重要的課題。
美國法院於過去數十年來建立了不正行為的判定準則，但隨著時間的推移，不正行過被過度的主張，於判例法下構成不正行為的要件也逐漸做了調整，2010年美國聯邦法院更是以全院聯席聽審了Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson一案，對不正行為立定了新的判斷方式，同年通過了最新的專利法修正案，為美國近年來最大規模的專利法修法。新增加的補充審查程序提供機會使專利權人得補提先前審查過程中未呈報的重要資訊給專利商標局，如此大幅度之判例與制度更動，於訴訟面，是否能夠因此有效遏止不正行為理論的過度主張與降低其連帶的負面效應，於申請面，是否可藉此防止過於浮濫的資訊如洪水般湧入專利局，乃是十分值得觀察與探討的對象，因此本文將以此作詳細的探討，並得出結論與建議。

Everyone substantively involved in patent prosecution owes a duty of good faith to disclose any information that is “material” to the issuance of the patent under consideration to” the examiner in U.S. patent system. A failure to meet the required duty would make patent unenforceable under the inequitable conduct doctrine, which is an equitable defense to patent infringement. For this reason, how to complies with the duty and avoiding for being accused of burying material information in the mean while is a big issue for inventor or patent owner.
For decades, standard for pleading inequitable conduct has been adjusted depart from past precedents. In virtue of inequitable conduct doctrine has been over expanded and increasingly used as a defense in U.S. patent infringement litigation, 2010, the Federal Circuit in Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson, unanimously undertook to rehear en banc, the standards governing the judicially-created defense of inequitable conduct. Soon after Therasense, congress enacted the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act(AIA), providing a new post-issuance proceeding called supplemental examination that allows patent owners preemptively reduce the likelihood of being accused of burying .In here we review the inequitable conduct doctrine and discuss whether both en banc decision and AIA legislation can cure, or stem the drawback of the doctrine. Finally, the thesis will make a conclusion and giving advice.

目錄
第一章　緒論1
1.1研究意識1
1.2研究方法3
1.3研究架構3
第二章　不正行為理論發展5
2.1衡平法5
2.1.1背景6
2.1.2救濟7
2.1.3與普通法之關係8
2.1.4 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.10
2.1.5 小結17
2.2不潔之手理論(Unclean Hands)18
2.2.1概論18
2.2.2理論要件19
2.2.3相關判決20
2.2.4 同等過失理論21
2.3 不正行為理論前導23
2.3.1 背景23
2.3.2 Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.24
2.3.3 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.25
2.3.4 Precision v. Automotive27
2.4 Therasense v. Becton,Dickinson前之不正行為理論31
2.4.1 背景31
2.4.2意圖35
2.4.3 重要性39
2.4.4 權衡44
2.5 Therasense v. Becton,Dickinson46
2.5.1 事實背景46
2.5.2 重要性標準50
2.5.3 意圖標準53
2.5.4 廢棄「移動尺度法」標準55
2.6 小結56
第三章　美國專利法之揭露義務制度61
3.1揭露義務制度之意義與簡介61
3.2揭露義務之背景與法源62
3.3誰有揭露義務64
3.4揭露義務之期間與IDS提出的時間65
3.5資訊揭露聲明書(IDS)內應有之內容69
3.6應揭露之資訊72
3.7 違反揭露義務與小結78
第四章　補充審查制度81
4.1背景81
4.2 主體82
4.3 時機83
4.4 如何適用84
4.4.1 申請人之誠實義務88
4.4.2 專利價值最大化88
4.5 小結89
第五章　結語91
參考文獻94
附錄　99

英文書目
[1]Doug Rendleman, Complex Litigation: Injunctions, Structural Remedies, and Contempt 152(2010)
[2]BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 268 (8th ed. 2004)
[3]DAN B. DOBBS, LAW OF REMEDIES: DAMAGES, EQUITY, RESTITUTION 68 (2d ed. 1993)
[4]JAMES M. FISCHER, UNDERSTANDING REMEDIES 463–464 (2006).
[5]BALLENTINE’S LAW DICTIONARY 447 (3d ed. 1969)
[6]DOUGLAS LAYCOCK, MODERN AMERICAN REMEDIES: CASES AND MATERIALS 966–967 (3rd ed. 2002)
[7]Richard J. McKinney, Historical Development of the Code of Federal Regulations, issue of Law Library Lights, Vol. 46, No. 1, p. 10-15 (2002)
[8]Black's Law Dictionary at 810 (6th ed. 1990)
[9]Peter D. Rosenberg et al., Patent Law Fundamentals, 2nd Edition, West Group (2003)
[10]Donald S. Chisum et al., Principles of Patent Law, 2nd Edition, Foundation Press (2001)
[11]Jeffrey G. Sheldon, How to Write a Patent Application, Dec. 2000, Practicing Law Institute, p8-13
[12]David Pressman, Patent It Yourself, 8th ed (October 20, 2000)
[13]David Hricik and Mercedes Meyer, Patent Ethics: Prosecution, (2013)
[14]MARTIN J. ADELMAN, RANDALL R. RADER & JOHN R. THOMAS, CASES AND MATERIALS ON PATENT LAW 586 (3d ed. 2009)
英文期刊
[1]Jay Erstling, Patent Law and the Duty of Candor: Rethinking the Limits of Disclosure, 44 CREIGHTON L. REV. 329, 337 (2011)
[2]John F. Lynch, An Argument for Eliminating the Defense of Patent Unenforceability Based on Inequitable Conduct, 16 AM. INTELL. PROP. L. ASS'N Q. J. 7, 8 (1988).
[3]Giuseppe Scellato et al., Study on the quality of the patent system in Europe, PATQUAL, 91-93 (Mar. 2011),
[4]Joe Matel, A Guide To The Legislative History Of The America Invents Act: Part II of II, 21 FED. CIR. B. J. 539, 546 (2011)
[5]Daniel Parrish, SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINATION AND INEQUITABLE CONDUCT: PROTECTION AND PITFALLS, 4 Cybaris An Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 157 (2013)
[6]John M. Golden, PATENT LAW'S FALSTAFF: INEQUITABLE CONDUCT, THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, AND THERASENSE, 7 Wash. J. L. Tech. & Arts 353(2012)
[7]Lisa A. Dolak, LITIGATING INEQUITABLE CONDUCT AFTER THERASENSE, EXERGEN, AND THE AIA:LESSONS FOR LITIGANTS, OPTIONS FOR OWNERS, 13 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 51(2013)
[8]Zhe (Amy) Peng, A PANACEA FOR INEQUITABLE CONDUCT PROBLEMS OR KINGSDOWN VERSION 2.0? THE THERASENSE DECISION AND A LOOK INTO THE FUTURE OF U.S. PATENT LAW REFORM, 16 Va. J.L. & Tech. 373(2011)
[9]Robert Brendan Taylor, Burying, 19 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 99 (2012)
[10]Christian E. Mammen, CONTROLLING THE “PLAGUE”: REFORMING THE DOCTRINE OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT, 24 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1329 (2009)
[11]Arpita Bhattacharyya, Michael R. McGurk, IDS PRACTICE AFTER THERASENSE [12]AND THE AIA: DECOUPLING THE LINK BETWEEN INFORMATION DISCLOSURE AND INEQUITABLE CONDUCT, 29 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 605, (2013)
[13]T. Leigh Anenson, INEQUITABLE CONDUCT IN RETROSPECTIVE: UNDERSTANDING UNCLEAN HANDS IN PATENT REMEDIES, 62 Am. U. L. Rev. 1441 (2013)
[14]Andrei Iancu, Ben Haber, POST-ISSUANCE PROCEEDINGS IN THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT, 93 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 476 (2011)
[15]Tun-Jen Chiang, THE UPSIDE-DOWN INEQUITABLE CONDUCT DEFENSE, 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1243 (2013)
[16]R. Carl Moy, The Effect of New Rule 56 on the Law of Inequitable Conduct, 74 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 257, 260 (1992)
[17]Roger Shang & Yar Chaikovsky, Inter Partes Reexamination of Patents: An Empirical Evaluation, 15 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 1, 11 (2006)
[18]Jason Rantanen & Lee Petherbridge, Toward a System of Invention Registration: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 110 MICH. L. REV. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 24, 25 (2011)
[19]Jason Rantanen et al., America Invents, More or Less?, 160 U. PA. L.REV. PENNUMBRA 229, 231 (2012)
[20]David McGowan, Inequitable Conduct, 43 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 945, 946 & n.6 (2010)
[21]Christopher A. Cotropia, Modernizing Patent Law's Inequitable Conduct Doctrine, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 723, 740 (2009)
[22]Randall R. Rader, A Review of Recent Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Foreward: Always at the Margin: Inequitable Conduct in Flux, 59 AM. U. L. REV. 777, 783 (2010)
[23]Christian Mammen, Revisiting the Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct Before the Patent and Trademark Office, 21 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 1007, 1009 (2011)
[24]David O. Taylor, Patent Fraud, 83 TEMPLE L. REV. 49, 65 (2010)
[25]Thomas F. Cotter, An Economic Analysis of Patent Law's Inequitable Conduct Doctrine, 53 ARIZ. L. REV. 735, 778 (2011)
[26]Daniel J. Meador, Retrospective on the Federal Circuit: The First 20 Years--A Historical View, 11 FED. CIR. B.J. 557, 558 (2002)
[27]Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, The Federal Circuit: A Case Study in Specialized Courts, 64 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1, 7 (1989)
[28]Lee Petherbridge, Jason Rantanen & Ali Mojibi, The Federal Circuit and Inequitable Conduct: An Empirical Assessment, 84 S. CAL. L. REV. 1293, 1351 (2011)
[29]Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, The Federal Circuit: A Continuing Experiment in Specialization, 54 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 769, 782 (2004)
[30]Arti K. Rai, Engaging Facts and Policy: A Multi-Institutional Approach to Patent System Reform, 103 COLUM. L. REV. 1035, 1106-07 (2003)
[31]John M. Golden, The Supreme Court as “Prime Percolator”: A Prescription for Appellate Review of Questions in Patent Law, 56 UCLA L. REV. 657, 667 (2009)
[32]Lee Petherbridge, Patent Law Uniformity?, 22 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 421, 428 (2009)
[33]Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, In Search of Institutional Identity: The Federal Circuit Comes of Age, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 787, 791 (2008)
[34]Arti K. Rai, Building a Better Innovation System: Combining Facially Neutral Patent Standards with Therapeutics Regulation, 45 HOUS. L. REV. 1037, 1038 (2008)
[35]Mark Gergen, John M. Golden & Henry E. Smith, The Supreme Court's Accidental Revolution? The Test for Permanent Injunctions, 112 COLUM. L. REV. 203, 206 (2012)
[36]Lisa A. Dolak, Inequitable Conduct: A Flawed Doctrine Worth Saving, 11 WAKE FOREST J. BUS. & INTELL. PROP. L. 1, 11 (2010)

美國判決(依照年份)
[1]Bein v. Heath, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 228 (1848)
[2]R.R. Co. v. Soutter, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 517, 523-24 (1871)
[3]Kitchen v. Rayburn, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 254, 263 (1873)
[4]Pope Manufacturing Co. v. Gormully., 144 U.S. 224 (1892)
[5]Simmons v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & N. Ry. Co., 159 U.S. 278, 291 (1895)
[6]Haffner v. Dobrinski., 215 U.S. 446 (1910).
[7]Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240 (1933).
[8]Atlas Life Ins. Co. v. W.I.S., Inc., 306 U.S. 563, 568 (1939)
[9]Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944).
[10]Precision Instrument Mfg Co v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery
Co., 324 U.S. 806 (1945).
[11]Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & C. Corp., 407 F.2d 288, 297 (9th Cir. 1 969)
[12]Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc., 439 F.2d 1369, 1380 (5th Cir. 1970)
[13]Norton v. Curtiss, 433 F.2d 779 (C.C.P.A. 1970).
[14]Scott Paper Co. v. Fort Howard Paper, 432 F.2d 1198(7th Cir.1970)
[15]SCM Corp. v. Radio Corp. of America, 318 F.Supp. 433, 449, 167 U.S.P.Q. 196, 207-08 (S.D.N.Y.1970)).
[16]Plastic Container Corp. v. Cont'l Plastics of Okla., Inc., 607 F.2d 885
(10th Cir. 1979)
[17]Digital Equipment Corp. v. Diamond., 653 F.2d 701 (1st Cir. 1981)
[18]American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350 (Fed.Cir. 1984)
[19]J.P. Stevens v. Lex Tex Ltd., 747 F.2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
[20]American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
[21]Argus Chemical Corp v. Fibre Glass-Evercoat Co., 759 F.2d at 14 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
[22]A.B.Dick Co. v. Burroughs Corp., 798F.2d 1392 (Fed Cir.1986)
[23]FMC Corp. v. Manitowoc Co., 835 F.2d 1411 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
[24]Kingsdown Medical Consultants Ltd Er v. Hollister Incorporated, 863 F.2d 867 (Fed.Cir.1988).
[25]Paragon Podiatry Lab., Inc. v. KLM Lab., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182 (Fed.Cir.1993)
[26]Molins PLC v.Textro 48 F.3d 1172(Fed Cir. 1995)
[27]Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics. Co., Ltd., 204 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
[28]Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 326 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
[29]Bruno Indep. Living Aids,Inc v.Acorn Mobility., 394 F.3d 1348(Fed.Cir.2005 )
[30]Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals.Inc., 410 F3.3d 690 (Fed. Cir.2005)
[31]eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C ,547 U.S. 388(2006)
[32]Ferring B.V. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 437 F.3d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
[33]McKesson Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Bridge Med., Inc., 487 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
[34]Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2008).
[35]Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir.
2010).
中文書籍
[1]鄭中人，專利法規釋義(2009)
[2]鄭中人，智慧財產權法導讀(三版)(2008)
[3]吳庚，行政法理論與實用(2006)
[4]黃文儀，專利侵害論(2013)
[5]王承守 、 周延鵬 、 陳郁婷 、 鄧穎懋，跨國專利侵權訴訟之管理(第二版)(2006)
[6]王承守、鄧穎懋，美國專利訴訟攻防策略應用(2004)
[7]劉國讚，專利法之理論與實用(二版)(2014)
[8]蔡明誠 專利法(培訓學院教材02)(4版)(2013)

中文論文
[1]林育輝，美國專利不正行為法則的發展-兼論於我國專利制度中之適用性探討，國立交通大學管理學院碩士在職專班科技法律組碩士論文碩士論文(2010)
[2]江駿宏，專利法上不正行為之研究，世新大學法學院智慧財產權研究所碩士論文(2011)
[3]陳志光，專利申請人不正行為規範之研究-以台灣及美國法之比較
為中心，台灣大學碩士論文(2009)

中文期刊
[1]尹守信，由Agfa v.Creo案談美國專利法上之揭露義務,智慧財產權月刊96期(2006)
[2]葉德輝，美國專利商標代理制度之研究,智慧財產權月刊90 期(2006)
[3]王錦寬、林敏浩，簡介美國專利制度之資訊揭露聲明書，智慧財產權月刊37期(2002)
[4]蔣犀勐，二元法體系及其衡平法發展，西南政法大学電子期刊2009年第6期，(2009)