在鋰電池產業中，專利是一項最被廣泛使用的智慧財產保護策略，而當企業間發生專利侵權行為並走向訴訟一途後，由被告方提出對專利有效性的質疑幾乎是每件專利訴訟必經的流程。自從美國國會在2011年頒布AIA法案後，由於其較低廉的規費及公正性，由專利審判及上訴委員會(PTAB)審理的多方複審(IPR)制度就成為了專利有效性最主要的戰場，因此本論文嘗試透過分析美國多方複審的申請案，探討鋰電池專利多方複審之申請與應對策略。　　
　　首先檢索出多方複審制度確立後與鋰電池技術相關的全部多方複審申請案，從中整理分析出PTAB接受並通過立案的關鍵因素，以及申請人最常被拒絕立案的理由，例如部分案例中，有不同申請人引用相似的證據對同一件專利向PTAB申請多方複審，而有些被同意立案，有些卻被拒絕，將此類型的案例進行比較分析即可具體了解如何滿足「合理勝訴可能性」的立案門檻，使PTAB同意立案。本文整理這些相關申請案中各種不同通過或被拒絕立案的關鍵因素，以具體了解促使PTAB做出立案決定的理由。
　　最後，統整前段案例分析的結果後，嘗試以相關從業人員，包含專利權人或多方複審申請人的角度，據此提出一些結論和建議，以提高專利保護策略和實踐的效益。

In the lithium-ion battery industry, patents are widely employed as a primary intellectual property protection strategy. When patent infringement disputes arise between companies and escalate to litigation, it is almost inevitable for the defendant to challenge the validity of the patent. Since the enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA) by the U.S. Congress in 2011, the Inter Partes Review (IPR) system administered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has become the primary battlefield for assessing patent validity, due to its cost-effectiveness and fairness. This study aims to explore lithium-ion battery patent petition and protection strategies by analyzing IPR petitions.
The study begins by retrieving all IPR cases related to lithium-ion battery technology established after the implementation of the IPR system. The analysis focuses on key factors leading to PTAB acceptance and institution, as well as the most common reasons for applicant rejections. Some cases involve different applicants citing similar evidence against the same patent in their IPR petitions, resulting in disparate outcomes—some are instituted and some are denied. Comparative analysis of such cases provides insights into meeting the "reasonable likelihood of success" threshold for granting institution. The paper organizes various critical factors contributing to IPR institution, offering a concrete understanding of the rationale behind these PTAB decisions.
In conclusion, the study synthesizes the findings from the preceding case analyses and attempts to present conclusions and recommendations from the perspectives of relevant stakeholders, including patent holders and IPR applicants. These insights aim to enhance the effectiveness of patent protection strategies and practical implementation.

期刊文獻
尹守信，淺析美國專利法上之非顯而易知性要件，智慧財產月刊，第84期，94年12月

朱浩筠，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，第213期，2016年9月

蔡佳穎，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，第28卷4期，2016年4月

王世仁，美國專利多方複審制度與相關法院判決，智慧財產月刊，第243期，2019年3月

陳在方，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，2017年9月

李秉燊，美國專利多方複審禁反言之對事效範圍－以實務變遷為中心，智慧財產月刊，第291期，2023年3月

學位論文
李敏誠，美國專利多方複審制度之力案裁量權及因應對策，國立台灣科技大學，2022年

何祥任，美國專利侵權訴訟中專利無效程序與多方複審制度之比較研究，國立政治大學，2020年

網路資料
Crowell & Moring LLP （2023）, What to Expect from the PTAB in 2023: Unpatentability Rates, in: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f51a9eff-827e-4a24-9b45-e72532cba587.

Ryan Davis（2014）, PTAB’s “Death Squad” Label Not Totally Off-Base, Chief Says, LAW360, in: http://www.law360.com/articles/567550/ptab-s-death-squadlabel-not-totally-off-base-chief-says.

USPTO official statistics, in: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/statistics/reexamination-information.

How to succeed at every stage of an inter partes review, in: https://www.iam-media.com/article/how-succeed-every-stage-of-inter-partes-review

外文文獻
Daniel Tishman, Ralph Phillips, Hyun Jin（HJ） In, 34 No. 1 Intell. Prop. & Tech. L.J. 3 （2022）

Mark D. Janis, Rethinking Reexamination: Toward a Viable Administrative Revocation System for U.S. Patent Law, 11 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 1, 53 (1997)

DONALD S. CHISUM, 1-SA02 CHISUM ON PATENTS § 6.3.4.5 (2017) (“An ex parte reexamination carries no threat of an estoppel against an unsuccessful third-party requester.”).