研究生: |
林立婷 Li-Ting Lin |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
專利侵權域外效力之探討–以美國專利法§271(f)為核心 Discussion on the Extraterritorial Effect of Patent Infringement–Taking the US Patent Law §271(f) as the core |
指導教授: |
陳昭華
Jau-Hwa Chen |
口試委員: |
王敏銓
陳曉惠 陳昭華 |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
應用科技學院 - 專利研究所 Graduate Institute of Patent |
論文出版年: | 2020 |
畢業學年度: | 108 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 98 |
中文關鍵詞: | 專利侵權 、域外效力 |
外文關鍵詞: | Patent Infringment, Extraterritorial Effect |
相關次數: | 點閱:348 下載:24 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
美國專利法在1984年11月8日,為了彌補專利侵權涉外案件之法律漏洞,增訂了專利法第271條(f)項(1)款及(2)款之規定,使得意圖於美國境外組裝完成專利侵權物,而從美國出口組成專利發明之組成部分,或從美國出口專利發明的特殊關鍵元件者,其行為受美國專利法之效力所及,換言之,美國專利法的效力擴及於在國外實施的侵權行為。
在討論美國專利法第271條(f)項(1)款及(2)款的眾多文獻中,對於其規範內容之適用前提及要件分析均未有完整的整理,本文以專利法第271條(f)項(1)款及(2)款的要件分析做為基礎,整理各個要件中具代表性的相關實務案例,並分析美國目前實務見解中對於專利法第271條(f)項(1)款及(2)款之適用範圍,尤其針對最具有爭議性的「方法專利」議題,整理正反兩面見解,而此類案例之發展對於美國在適用專利法第271條(f)項(1)款及(2)款的過程中往往發生重大的影響力。
其次,因為我國目前沒有專利間接侵權制度,亦沒有設置專利侵權的域外效力制度,故我國對於相同的專利侵權涉外案件在審理上常常發生無法管轄之困境,本文對此提出建議,希冀我國法制針對專利權之保護能夠更加周全。
The US Patent Law on November 8, 1984, in order to make up for the legal loopholes in foreign cases of patent infringement, added the provisions of Section 271(f)(1) and (2) of the Patent Law to make the intention to assemble outside the United States Those who have completed patent infringement and exported from the United States to form an integral part of a patented invention or to export special key components of a patented invention from the United States are subject to the effects of the US Patent Law. In other words, the effectiveness of the US Patent Law extends to Torts committed abroad.
In the numerous documents discussing Article 271(f)(1) and (2) of the US Patent Law, the applicable premises and analysis of the requirements of its normative content have not been completely sorted out. This article uses the Patent Law Article 271 (F) Subparagraphs (1) and (2) element analysis as a basis, sort out the relevant practical cases representative of each element, and analyze the current U.S. practical opinions on Article 271(f) of the Patent Law ( The scope of application of paragraphs 1) and (2), especially for the most controversial issue of "method patents", sorting out the positive and negative views, and the development of such cases is for the United States to apply Article 271(f) of the Patent Law Significant influence often occurs in the process of (1) and (2).
Secondly, because Taiwan does not currently have a legal system for indirect patent infringement and does not have a legal system for extraterritorial validity of patent infringement, our country often encounters difficulties in the jurisdiction of the same patent infringement-related foreign-related cases. The protection of patent rights can be more comprehensive.
英文文獻
1. Annotated Patent Digest (Matthews) , November 2017 Update Robert A. Matthews, Jr.
2. Aerogroup Intern., Inc. v. Marlboro Footworks, Ltd. United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 04, 1997 955 F.Supp. 220 1997 WL 45345.
3. Amstar Corp. v. Envirotech Corp., 823 F.2d 1538, 1546, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1412 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
4. Barry v. Medtronic, Inc., _ F. Supp. 3d _, _, 2017 WL 1197854 (E.D. Tex. 2017).
5. CIF Licensing, LLC v. Agere Systems Inc., 2010 WL 3001775, *9–*10 (D. Del. 2010).
6. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 911 F.2d 670, 674–75 (Fed.Cir.1990).
7. Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518, 92 S. Ct. 1700, 173 U.S.P.Q. 769 (1972).
8. Enpat, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 6 F. Supp. 2d 537, 539, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1218 (E.D. Va. 1998).
9. Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325, 1338–41, 73 U.S.P.Q.2d 1782 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
10. Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co., 438 F.3d 1354, 1363 (Fed.Cir.2006).
11. Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc., 449 F.3d 1209, 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1094, 70 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 315 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
12. McRO, Inc. v. Namco Bandai Games America, Inc., 2013 WL 8540289, *6 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
13. Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 125 S.Ct. 2764, 162 L.Ed.2d 781 (2005).
14. Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 127 S. Ct. 1746, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1400, 1409 n.15 (2007).
15. NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 261 F. Supp. 2d 423, 431, 67 U.S.P.Q.2d 1574 (E.D. Va. 2002).
16. Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., No. SACV 03-16 CAS (ANx), 2009 WL 466074 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2009).
17. Pellegrini v. Analog Devices, Inc., 375 F.3d 1113, 71 U.S.P.Q.2d 1630 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
18. Rotec Industries, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246, 1257–58, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001, 53 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1399 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
19. The Trustees of Columbia University in the Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, 150 F. Supp. 2d 191, 204–05 (D. Mass. 2001).
20. Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, 150 F. Supp. 2d 191, 204–05 (D. Mass. 2001).
21. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Tech. Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 425 F.3d 1366, 1378–79, 76 USPQ2d 1705, 1713–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
22. Waymark Corp. v. Porta Systems Corp., 245 F.3d 1364, 1367–69, 58 U.S.P.Q.2d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
23. Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp., 245 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
中文文獻
1. 沈宗倫,跨境分工非法實施行為論專利侵權法制的困境與續造─以智慧財產法院103年度民專訴字第112號判決為例,月旦法學雜誌第264期,2017年5月,頁210-228。
2. 陳榮傳,專利侵害的涉外民事訴訟(上)─以最高法院案例及新法適用為中心,台灣法學雜誌,215期,2013年1月1日,頁1-10。
3. 陳榮傳,專利侵害的涉外民事訴訟(下)─以最高法院案例及新法適用為中心,台灣法學雜誌,216期,2013年1月15日,頁1-17。
4. 楊智傑,美國專利引誘侵權之明知要件與海外侵權-2011年Global-Tech v. SEB S.A.案。
5. 蔡華凱,論涉外智慧財產民事事件之國際裁判管轄與準據法,國立中正大學法學集刊,31期,2010年10月,頁57-115。