- <![CDATA[美國專利侵權合理權利金之計算方式及發展趨勢]]>科技法律研究所114-08-02114-08-02<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>美國專利侵權合理權利金之計算方式及發展趨勢 Calculation Method and Development Trends towards Reasonable Royalty Damages for U.S. Patent Infringement</strong></span><br />
作者：吳靜怡 (Jing-Yi Wu)<br />
出版年月：201612<br />
關鍵詞：合理權利金、分配法則、整體市場價值法則、標準基礎專利、持續性權利金、Reasonable Royalty、Apportionment、The Entire Market Value Rule、Standard-essential Patents、Ongoing Royalties<br />
<br />
中文摘要:<br />
本文首先說明美國專利侵權損害賠償之法律規定，再以質性分析判決內容之方式，淺介數個「所失利益」、「合理權利金」、「可比較的授權」、「分配法則、整體市場價值法則」之案件，藉此說明美國法院計算合理權利金之方式。由於判決乃針對個案事實適用法律之結果，對於計算合理權利金之觀點與角度並非全面，部分判決間就相同法律原則甚至產生不同解釋結果，原因為何？首應探究者乃各個法律原則之初衷，再審究個案事實之異同，始能妥適適用各該法律原則。本文嘗試分類歸納不同案件類型，以建構合理權利金計算之框架概念，並提出「合理權利金」之計算模式。再就分配法則、整體市場價值法則、最小可銷售元件、貢獻度等概念在「所失利益」、「合理權利金」、「侵害人所得利益」等不同損害賠償計算方法下之定位提出建議。<br />
對於合理權利金最近發展趨勢，即「標準基礎專利之權利金」及「持續性權利金」之計算方式，本文亦予以分析介紹。計算標準基礎專利之權利金時，與一般合理權利金之計算並不完全相同，尤其專利權人是否履行「公平合理無歧視之授權義務」，是否造成「專利箝制、權利金堆疊」而有礙競爭、損及消費者利益，近年來已成為美國學界與實務界關注之焦點，美國聯邦地方法院對此種權利金之計算呈現多樣化之狀態，聯邦巡迴上訴法院最近在Ericsson v. D-Link案中給予審判之指導方針，本文比較該案與其他標準基礎專利權利金計算之異同，並介紹我國智財法院相關判決及提出建議。此外，於陪審團判決確認侵害專利後，侵權人仍繼續侵權所衍生之「持續性權利金」議題，聯邦巡迴上訴法院雖曾表達過幾個原則，然未明示計算方法，本文分析德州東區地方法院法官對Mondis Technology Ltd. v. Chimei InnoLux Corp. 一案之意見及學者間不同之觀點，藉以建立「持續性權利金之計算架構」，並提出針砭之建言。<br />
<br />
英文摘要:<br />
This article firstly elaborated legal regulations about infringement damage compensation with American patents and then facilitated with qualitative analysis of judgment content to give a brief induction of the cases about Lost Profit, Reasonable Royalty, Comparable Licenses, Apportionment and Entire Market Value Rule, and take this opportunity to specify the calculation way of reasonable royalty used for American court. As judgment was entered under results for applicable law about some case conditions and not comprehensive viewpoint for reasonable royalty, and some judgments may have different explanation under the same legal principle between two judgments, why did it result from? To answer this question, we should firstly probe the initial intention for each legal principle, and then audit the differences between each two case facts before it properly applied for each legal principle. This article tried to classify and incorporate into different case types for formulating conceptual framework for reasonable royalty, as well as raise calculation mode for reasonable royalty.<br />
For recent development trends towards reasonable royalty, namely the calculation mode of royalty for standard-essential patents and ongoing royalties, this Article also gave analysis and introductions. While calculating royalties for standard-essential patents, it was not exactly the same as that of reasonable royalty, especially whether patentee fulfills fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory obligation or whether it resulted patent holdup, royalty stacking and caused impairment for competition, damage of consumer benefits, which has become the focus in the American scholars and pragmatic industry in recent years, the United States District Courts have diversified statuses about calculation of such royalty, and the Federal Circuit gave the guiding principles at Ericsson v. D-Link case. In addition, in regards to the issue of infringer still continues to infringe Ongoing Royalties after jury verdict and affirmed infringement for patent rights, the Federal Circuit Court did not explicitly indicate calculation method even through it expressed several principles, this article analyzed the comments that gave by the judges at the Eastern District of Texas about the case of Mondis Technology Ltd. v. Chimei InnoLux Corp., as well as the different viewpoints made by scholars, so as to set up calculation framework for ongoing royalty, and raised for critical advice.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://www.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0001&detailNo=1401076953372430336&type=s美國專利侵權合理權利金之計算方式及發展趨勢
- <![CDATA[社會網絡分析方法探討LED公司專利侵權訴訟關係之角色與位置]]>科技法律研究所114-08-02114-08-02<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>社會網絡分析方法探討LED公司專利侵權訴訟關係之角色與位置 Exploring Roles ＆ Positions of LED Companies Involved in Patent Infringement Litigations —A Social Network Analysis</strong></span><br />
作者：楊文蘭<br />
出版年月：201612<br />
關鍵詞：專利侵權訴訟、社會網絡分析、角色與位置、專利價值、訴訟策略、Patent Infringement Litigation、Social Network Analysis、Role and Position、Patent Value、Litigation Strategy<br />
<br />
中文摘要:<br />
智慧財產權為科技產業公司重要財產，為保護智慧財產所應採取的法律策略時，應綜合評估各項資訊，而以商業目的考量，以佈局方式取得最佳利益。競爭對手為取得最佳利益，可能採取提起專利侵權訴訟等方式，製造生產障礙，取得談專利授權的談判地位等。另外，被多數公司選擇為訴訟的專利標的，亦能從中發現該專利所具有的價值。因為專利訴訟常為高科技公司採取的重要競爭策略，如何辨識企業為何發動專利訴訟的意圖是制訂訴訟策略的重要議題。本研究蒐集LED產業的專利權侵權訴訟資料並形成分析的資料集，本文以上歸納，透過109筆訴訟案件經過篩選後，將訴訟筆數縮減為64筆以及24家公司進行整理分析，結合敘述性統計與社會網絡分析辨識專利權侵權訴訟行動者的訴訟意圖，專利訴訟網絡中的向外程度中心性與特徵向量中心性形成主動性質的意圖指標、向內程度中心性為被動性意圖指標，利用此二種主動性（攻擊方）與被動性（防禦方）指標可以將24家訴訟公司歸類成四種角色，包括主要玩家、專利蟑螂、受害者和旁觀者，以瞭解公司的訴訟意圖並探討訴訟專利的價值，發現主要玩家有訴訟優勢建議採取訴訟策略，專利蟑螂不易由反訴方式制衡，旁觀者則建議透過併購專利方式強化重要性。<br />
<br />
英文摘要:<br />
Intellectual properties are the most important intangible assets of high-tech companies. When high tech companies want to initiate any legal action in protecting their intellectual properties, they tend to take the business strategies and goals into consideration, hoping to gain the best interest for their entities. For example, competitors may start patent infringement lawsuits to create roadblocks for production; and as a result, they will establish an advantageous position in negotiating the patent royalties. Further, the underlying value of a patent can be evaluated by how often this patent is chosen as the target for infringement lawsuits. Patent litigation is an important competitive strategy leveraged by high-tech companies. Therefore, it is important to understand the intention of companies that bring the action of patent litigation. In this study, the major data set is collected from patent infringement lawsuits in the LED (Liquid Emitting Diode) industry. Through a careful selection process, 64 lawsuits and 24 companies have been further analyzed and studied for this paper. The motivations of the patent litigation initiators are identified by the descriptive statistics and the impact of social network. The “out-degree centrality” and “eigenvector centrality” in the patent litigation network form the active intent index; on the other hand, “in-degree centrality” forms the passive intent index. This study utilizes the active intent index (the offensive) and the passive intent index (the offensive) to categorize the 24 companies into four distinct roles in the litigation: key players, patent trolls, victims and bystanders. The purpose of conducting such analysis is to understand high-tech companies’ motivation of initiating litigations and the underlying value of patents in those cases. This analysis concludes three major findings. First, key players usually take litigation as a part of business strategies and occupy an advantageous position. Secondly, patent trolls are not intimidated by counterclaims or counter-lawsuits. And thirdly, the strategy of bystanders is to increase the value of their patent portfolios by acquiring the related patents.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://www.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0001&detailNo=1401076525956075520&type=s社會網絡分析方法探討LED公司專利侵權訴訟關係之角色與位置
- <![CDATA[資料經濟趨勢下美國對於資料仲介業規制之研究]]>科技法律研究所114-08-02114-08-02<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>資料經濟趨勢下美國對於資料仲介業規制之研究 A Study on the Regulation of Data Brokers in the U.S. under the Trend of Data Economics</strong></span><br />
作者：許慧瑩 (Huei-Ying Hsu)、葉志良<br />
出版年月：201612<br />
關鍵詞：大數據、資料仲介業、資訊隱私、個人資料保護法、個資外洩、Big Data、Data Broker、Information Privacy、Personal Information Protection Act、Breach of Personal Data<br />
<br />
中文摘要:<br />
在資料驅動社會脈動的今日，資料透過大量線上與離線活動，不斷地生成、傳遞與利用，儼然與物質和能源並列為關鍵的經濟資源，資料經濟已成為眾人討論的熱點；然而，資料與其他經濟資源最大的差異點，在於資料並不會因為使用而消耗，而是透過不斷地重組與再利用，使得資料的價值越經使用價值越高。由於資料具備此等特性，使得在資料驅動式社會生態環境中掌握大量資料（訊）或資料（訊）來源者，相對地占有較為優勢的地位。資料仲介業（data broker）因掌握大量從政府公共檔案、經銷商以及消費者日常生活等所取得的原始資料，與透過資料通路所進行之資料蒐集、儲存、分析、分享等，其所提供的資料產品與服務帶動整個資訊經濟的發展。特別在大數據統計分析應用技術發展下，將資料廣泛應用至各個領域，使原先的資料仲介業產生蛻變。然而，當資料仲介業者為找尋資料與資料間的關連性所為之剖繪（profiling），也因為資料的連結，對於個人資料與隱私保護造成相當大的衝擊。大數據趨勢下資料的應用，如何在各方利害關係者間取得平衡，甚或考量對資料仲介業進行規制，具有深入研究的價值。本文透過檢視近期美國資料仲介業的個資外洩事件、聯邦貿易委員會提出之隱私綱領、美國政府責任辦公室對資料仲介業規制之檢視報告、美國國會近期提出之立法草案，以及業者自發性的自律機制，逐步探求美國對於資料仲介業的規制模式，進一步反思我國法制上如何因應資料服務業的發展，以及如何於大數據應用中對於個人資料與隱私保護議題所產生之困境，提出初步的導引方向。<br />
<br />
英文摘要:<br />
Nowadays the development of analytics and applications of big data is booming. The data that are being generated, transferred and utilized via many online/offline activities have become the critical economic resource as the same as the substances and energy resources. “Data Economics” has become the most important issue that everyone discusses. However, the difference between data and other economic resources is that the data are not exhaustive and can be reassembled and reused. The more the data are used, the more value the data become. Thus, the one who controls more data or more sources of data has the more dominant position than others. Data Brokers are mainly engaged in reselling the products or services of data. They control a large amount of original data and the channels of data, including the public records, data generated from the dealers or consumers in the daily life. The data products and services that brought by data brokers can promote the development of the entire information economy. By the emerging analytics of big data, the original data industry has reformed. However, the data brokers’ acts on the profiling among different data may become a great concern on the personal data and privacy protection. Thus, the questions of how to make a balance among various stakeholders and how to regulate the data broker industry are crucial subjects for an in-depth study. This paper examines recent cases of breaches of personal data by the data brokers in the U.S., the reports prepared by the Federal Trade Commission and the Government Accountability Office, proposed legislation by Congress, and the self-regulation by the data brokers. By analyzing the modes of regulating the data industry in the U.S., this paper argues that Taiwan’s legal framework should be adjusted to the development of data industry and considered how to get out of the difficult position of current data protection laws.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://www.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0001&detailNo=1401076174930579456&type=s資料經濟趨勢下美國對於資料仲介業規制之研究
- <![CDATA[跨太平洋夥伴協定下的投資人對地主國仲裁機制──以ICSID與UNCITRAL仲裁程序之比較為中心]]>科技法律研究所114-08-02114-08-02<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>跨太平洋夥伴協定下的投資人對地主國仲裁機制──以ICSID與UNCITRAL仲裁程序之比較為中心 Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanisms under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement —Comparison between the ICSID Procedures and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules</strong></span><br />
作者：高啟中<br />
出版年月：201612<br />
關鍵詞：跨太平洋夥伴協定、投資人對地主國爭端解決、解決國家與他國國民間投資爭端公約、國際投資爭端解決中心、聯合國國際貿易法委員會仲裁規則、TPP、ISDS、ICSID Convention、ICSID、UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules、跨太<br />
<br />
中文摘要:<br />
國際區域經濟整合日趨熱絡，我國近年亦積極爭取加入如跨太平洋夥伴協定（TPP）的國際經貿協定。TPP下的投保專章除制訂跨國投資之實體規範以外，亦明訂以仲裁作為投資人對地主國爭端解決（ISDS）機制之一，投資人得依解決國家與他國國民間投資爭端公約（ICSID公約）向國際投資爭端解決中心（ICSID）提交仲裁，或依據ICSID附加便利規則（Additional Facility Rules）進行仲裁，或依循聯合國國際貿易法委員會仲裁規則（UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules）進行仲裁。此等程序除原則上尊重當事人自主原則以外，亦各自有其獨特設計與相異之處：如仲裁庭之主任仲裁人由當事人或仲裁人選任；是否採取促進程序效率的相關措施，如針對濫訴之異議、程序性諮商、庭前會議等；是否將仲裁程序透明化與公開仲裁相關資訊；仲裁判斷之救濟由何種機關審理；仲裁判斷的承認與執行之依據等。我國若加入TPP，對此等程序之適用有加以探究之必要。<br />
<br />
英文摘要:<br />
In light of the growth in regional economy integration, Taiwan has endeavored to participate in FTAs such as the TPP. The investment chapter of the TPP includes not only provisions of substantive treatments towards investment, but also ISDS mechanisms. Should a dispute arise, an investor will be allowed to request for arbitration against a host state in accordance with ICSID Convention art. 25(1) or ICSID Additional Facility Rules, or alternatively commence arbitral proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. These three arbitration procedures share the same principle of party autonomy, but are differently designed in various detailed aspects, such as the composition of the tribunal, the mechanisms promoting procedural efficiency, the prevention of frivolous claims, transparency in arbitral proceedings, and most importantly, the enforcement of and remedy against the awards. Once Taiwan joins the TPP, it is necessary to understand such procedures.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://www.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0001&detailNo=1401075801469751296&type=s跨太平洋夥伴協定下的投資人對地主國仲裁機制──以ICSID與UNCITRAL仲裁程序之比較為中心
- <![CDATA[以證明標章及團體商標保護地理標示之研究]]>科技法律研究所114-08-02114-08-02<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>以證明標章及團體商標保護地理標示之研究 Protection of Geographical Indications by Certification Marks and Collective Marks: Challenges and Perspectives</strong></span><br />
作者：<br />
出版年月：201612<br />
關鍵詞：地理標示、原產地名稱、產地證明標章、產地團體商標、Geographical Indication、Appellations of Origin、Geographical Certification Trademark、Geographical Collective Trademark<br />
<br />
中文摘要:<br />
地理標示是一逐漸演進、概念多元且國際上保護機制仍有相當爭議之智慧財產權類型。現今對於地理標示之保護模式，大致可區分為以下兩者：首先是以傳統商標制度，特別是證明標章或團體商標來保護具有強烈辨識地理區域需求之地理標示，其次則是透過單獨立法之方式，賦予基於獨特地理環境而生之商品特殊保護。不論透過何者，通常會另輔以競爭法、消費者保護法、民法或其他行政規範，保護消費者不受虛假或引人錯誤標示訊息所混淆，或避免不當競爭。我國對於地理標示主要係透過傳統商標制度，特別是產地證明標章及產地團體商標，另外再輔以公平交易法或其他行政規定保護。然而，我國不論是規範、實務解釋或是實際運用上，皆有許多值得重新檢討。此外，主管機關似乎缺乏將規範與實務運作相互對照，亦未對已制定規範進行檢討評估。是故，本研究以我國法為中心，檢討在不同地理標示保護模式下，如何解決可能產生的衝突，並求相互利益之最佳平衡。換言之，地理標示的保護方式不應是擇一而互斥，基於其集體特性使然，地理標示必然帶有一定之群體性與公眾性。因此，當智慧財產權獨占本質與地理標示的群體性相衝突時，必須透過釐清與檢視不同規範的本質與功能，始能緩慢梳理出這一介於單獨立法（sui generis）、商標法間難解議題的脈絡。<br />
<br />
英文摘要:<br />
This study attempts to explore the relation between geographical indications (GIs), trademark law and competition law in the context of Asian legal framework. The ever expanding global marketplace and increasing sophistication of consumers have led to a heightened need to protect indications geographic from misappropriation and abuses. Two main types of protections are provided nowadays: one is using traditional trademark law; the other is sui generis GI law which refers to the protection of GIs through specific systems separated from trademark law. No matter which types is chosen, the protection usually applies as well as the competition law, the Consumers Protection Act, the Civil law or the related administrative regulations. In Taiwan, the protection of the GIs is by trademark law, which had been amended by adding the “Geographical Certification Mark” and the “Geographical Collective Trademark” and applied with the competition law and other related administrative regulations. However, the current GI protection is not sufficient and effective in its legal framework as well as in the practice. Therefore, this study aims to examine and analyze the protection of GIs in Europe and Taiwan. It then evaluates the most appropriate way to protect GIs.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://www.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0001&detailNo=1401063719114379264&type=s以證明標章及團體商標保護地理標示之研究