政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/152055
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113451/144438 (79%)
Visitors : 51274729      Online Users : 866
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大典藏 > College of Law > Department of Law > Theses >  Item 140.119/152055
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/152055


    Title: 專利侵權之跨境損害賠償
    Extraterritorial Damages of Patent Infringement
    Authors: 吳怡蓁
    Wu, Yi-Jhen
    Contributors: 沈宗倫
    Shen, Chung-Lun
    吳怡蓁
    Wu, Yi-Jhen
    Keywords: 專利侵權
    境外損害
    屬地主義
    損害賠償
    兩步驟測試法
    因果關係
    事實上因果關係
    法律上因果關係
    Patent Infringement
    Foreign Damages
    Territoriality
    Two-Step Approach
    Compensation
    Causal Relationship
    Factual Causation
    Legal Causation
    Date: 2024
    Issue Date: 2024-07-01 12:36:05 (UTC+8)
    Abstract:   專利法賦予專利權人之法定排他權,其行使受到全要件原則以及屬地主義原則之限制。換言之,欲主張他人構成專利侵權並請求排除侵害和損害賠償以茲救濟,行為人實施之方法或發明需落入申請專利範圍且在專利授予國境內實施。然而,當侵權行為發生於境內但損害發生於境外,損害賠償範圍是否需如同侵權行為,受兩大原則之限制非無疑問。為釐清此問題,本文聚焦於境內侵權行為所造成之境外損害,得否依本國專利法被評價為專利權價值減損之結果而計入損害賠償範圍?若是,則應以何種方式架構境外損害與境內侵權間之因果關係? 
      據本文之觀察,諸多美國判決皆顯示屬地主義在專利侵權判定上有延展之餘地,全要件原則亦有彈性解釋之空間,故無以全要件與屬地主義原則明確劃分損害賠償範圍之必要。美國最高法院於2018年提出以「兩步驟測試法」判斷專利權人得否就境外損害獲得賠償,並肯認出口重要專利元件至境外組裝所生之損害得納入損害賠償範圍。然而,就境內直接侵權行為所生之境外損害得否納入賠償範圍,實務見解仍有歧異,縱採肯定說,亦未釐清如何建立境外損害賠償之因果關係。
      經由分析學者與美國法院之相關見解,本文認為一旦確定構成專利侵權,就不應該再以專利授予國之領土範圍限制損害賠償範圍。誠然,美國最高法院藉由兩步驟測試法,論證就境外損害予以賠償並非專利法之域外適用,惟就境外損害予以賠償只是在填補專利權人遭不法挪移至境外之本國專利權經濟價值,本質上就不存在將專利法適用於境外之疑慮,故仍有就境外損害予以賠償之正當性。至於因果關係之建立,本文認為境內侵權與境外損害間應存在事實上與法律上因果關係,並注意重複賠償禁止。其中,就法律上因果關係之建立,本文從以下三個面向檢驗是否有獨立原因介入:境內排他權違反之類型、境內外專利權人之異同、境內侵權人與境外行為人之異同。凡從任一面向得出存有獨立原因,即無法認定境內專利侵權行為乃境外損害之近因。
      最後,本文藉由比較法所得之啟發,以新架構之因果關係,回顧我國相關實務判決。由於我國法院在某些判決中忽視因果關係之建立,使專利損害賠償法制中充分填補專利權人損害之目的,無法與專利屬地主之法理義達成平衡,故本文提出相關建議,以期能對我國實務就專利侵權境外損害賠償範圍之判斷有所貢獻。
    The exclusive right of patentees is subject to limitations imposed by the principle of territoriality and the all-elements rule. In other words, to assert patent infringement, the acts performed must fall within the scope of the patent claim and be carried out within the territory of the patent-granted country. However, when infringement occurs domestically but damages occur abroad, the question of whether the scope of compensation should be subject to the same restrictions as the infringement itself remains uncertain. To address this issue, this article focuses on whether damages resulting from domestic infringement can be awarded compensation under domestic patent law, and if so, how the causal relationship between foreign damages and domestic infringement should be established.
    Based on the observations in this article, several judgments of the United States indicate that there is flexibility in applying territoriality and the all-elements rule in patent infringement determinations, and therefore, there is no imperative need to delineate the scope of damages under these principles. In 2018, the United States Supreme Court introduced a "two-step approach" to determine whether a patentee may be awarded compensation for foreign damages and recognized that damages resulting from supplying substantial components of a patent invention for combination abroad may be included. However, there is still divergence regarding whether damages arising from domestic infringement should be included in the scope of compensation, and even if an affirmative view is taken, the causal relationship between foreign damages and domestic infringement remains unclear.
    Relying on scholars' views and relevant court decisions of the United States, this article argues that once patent infringement is established, the scope of damages should not be limited by the territorial boundaries of the patent-granted country. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States, through the two-step approach, demonstrated that compensating foreign damages is not an extraterritorial application of patent law but rather a means to recover the economic value of patent rights unlawfully transferred abroad. Therefore, there is legitimacy in compensating for foreign damages. Regarding the establishment of causation, this article suggests that there should be factual and legal causation between domestic infringement and foreign damages, while also preventing double recovery. Specifically, the legal causation should be examined from three aspects to determine if there are intervening causes: types of infringement violating exclusive rights, differences between domestic and foreign patentees, differences between domestic infringers and foreign actors. If an intervening cause is identified from any of these aspects, we cannot conclude that domestic patent infringement is the proximate cause of foreign damages.
    Finally, this article proposes a new framework for causation and reviews relevant judgments in our country. Since our courts have overlooked the establishment of causal relationship and territoriality, this article further provides recommendations to contribute to the judicial decision of the compensation for foreign damages.
    Reference: 壹、 中文文獻 (依姓氏筆畫順序)
    一、 書籍
    1. 王澤鑑,民法叢書:侵權行為,2015年6月,增訂新版。
    2. 王澤鑑,民法叢書:債法原理,2009年9月,再版。
    3. 方博亮、林祖嘉,管理經濟學,2019年9月,5版。
    4. 陳聰富,侵權行為法原理,2017年9月,初版。
    5. 劉國讚,專利法之理論與實用,2017年8月,4版。
    6. 蔡明誠,發明專利法研究,2000年,三版。
    7. 鄭玉波,民法債編總論,2002年6月,修訂2版。
    8. 謝銘洋,智慧財產權法,2019年8月,9版。

    二、 專書論文
    1. 沈宗倫,專利權侵權下跨境損害賠償之初探,新世紀臺灣法學:國立政治大學法學院六十週年院慶論文集,2021年12月。
    2. 鄭菀瓊、詹喨嵎,專利間接侵權責任:美國法與台灣法比較觀點之對照,智慧財產訴訟制度相關論文彙編第4輯,2015年。
    3. 謝銘洋、李素華,專利侵權訴訟中之進步性與均等論──德國觀點,智慧財產訴訟制度相關論文彙編第2輯,2013年。

    三、 期刊論文
    1. 王澤鑑,損害概念與損害分類,月旦法學雜誌,第124期,2005年9月。
    2. 王立達,專利間接侵權:如何適用現行法及修訂新法以達適切均衡,專利師,45期,2021年4月。
    3. 王立達、陳師敏,專利間接侵權之制度規範:我國判決實證研究與法制建議,科技法學評論,第11卷第2期,2014年。
    4. 方元沂,論美國國際禮讓原則,華岡法粹,第55期,2013年10月。
    5. 沈宗倫,申請專利範圍之解釋原則與均等論──最高法院111年度台上字第1785號民事裁定及下級法院之再審判決,月旦實務選評,第3卷第7期,2023年7月。
    6. 沈宗倫,專利侵權下合理權利金損害賠償法制之反省與再建構──以我國專利法第97條第1項第3款之解釋適用為中心,政大法學評論,第168期,2022年3月。
    7. 沈宗倫,專利權侵害所生不當得利之本質與延伸問題探索,月旦法學雜誌,第309期,2021年2月。
    8. 沈宗倫,專利權均等侵害與禁反言之衝突與調和──以智慧財產法院106年度民專上字第28號民事判決為中心,月旦法學雜誌,第305期,2020年10月。
    9. 沈宗倫,專利權均等侵害與禁反言法則之例外,月旦法學教室,第210期,2020年4月。
    10. 沈宗倫,論貢獻度於專利權損害賠償之法理與實踐──以專利法第97條第1項第2款為中心,萬國法律,第226期,2019年8月。
    11. 沈宗倫,以跨境分工非法實施行為論專利侵權法制的困境與續造──以智慧財產法院一○三年度民專訴字第一一二號判決為例,月旦法學雜誌,第264期,2017年5月。
    12. 沈宗倫,專利侵權者所得利益與損害賠償計算之新視野──以智慧財產法院104年度民專訴字第50號判決為中心,月旦法學雜誌,第295期,2019年12月。
    13. 沈宗倫,專利複合之專利權價值分攤與損害賠償──以智慧財產法院101年度民專上字第4號判決為例,月旦法學雜誌,第239期,2015年4月。
    14. 沈宗倫,專利權保護之屬地主義與境外法效,月旦法學雜誌,第234期,2014年11月。
    15. 沈宗倫,專利侵害責任範圍因果關係之合理詮釋與再建構,科技法學評論,第8卷第1期,2011年6月。
    16. 李素華,再論智慧財產權侵害之「損害」概念──評最高法院107年度台上字第2359號民事判,月旦法學雜誌,第317期,2021年10月。
    17. 李素華,專利權範圍與均等侵權之理論基礎──以德國法為比較之初探,月旦法學雜誌,第304期,2020年9月。
    18. 李素華,與談「為判決注入活水的專業律師──談專利法上之間接侵權與共同侵權」,萬國法律,第203期,2015年10月。
    19. 李素華,專利侵權損害賠償及侵害所得利益法之具體適用:以我國專利法為中心,臺大法學論從,第42卷第4期,2013年12月。
    20. 李素華,專利權侵害之損害賠償計算方式,月旦法學教室,第124期,2013年2月。
    21. 吳欣玲,專利間接侵權(Indirect Infringement)規定之初探──兼論我國專利法修正草案之內容」,智慧財產權月刊,第130期,2009年。
    22. 陳聰富,人身侵害之損害概念,國立臺灣大學法學論叢,第35卷第1期,2006年1月。
    23. 陳聰富,侵權行為法上之因果關係,臺大法學論叢,第29卷第2期,2000年1月。
    24. 陳月瑞,民事醫療因果關係之探討,財產法與經濟法,第35期,2013年9月。
    25. 張韜略,跨境實施專利的侵權認定:以德國法為視角,知識產權,第12期,2020年。
    26. 馮震宇,論侵害專利權之民事責任與民事救濟,法學叢刊,第161期,1996年1月。
    27. 陳皓芸,論專利權間接侵害責任──以複數行為人分擔實施專利之情形為中心,高大法學論叢,第11卷1期,2015年9月。
    28. 許忠信,從德國法之觀點看我國專利權侵害之損害賠償責任,臺北大學法學論叢,第61期,2007年3月。
    29. 黃銘傑,「侵害行為所得利益」計算規定之法律定位、功能與適用──評最高法院九十二年度台上字第二二七號判決,月旦法學雜誌,第167期,2009年4月。
    30. 葉新民,由專利侵權案件重新省思損害的概念──以智慧財產法院106年度民專訴字第44號民事判決為例,月旦裁判時報,第87期,2019年9月。
    31. 楊宏暉,標準關鍵專利之濫用與限制競爭,公平交易季刊,第23卷第4期,2015年10月。
    32. 楊博堯、劉尚志,從故意侵權論我國專利懲罰性損害賠償實務之發展,智慧財產權月刊,第197期,2015年5月。
    33. 詹森林,專利受侵害時之排除侵害與損害賠償,月旦法學雜誌,第13期,1996年6月。
    34. 劉明生,共同侵權行為之共同訴訟型態,月旦法學教室,第195期,2019年1月
    35. 劉尚志、陳瑋明、賴婷婷,合理權利金估算及美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院之判決分析,專利師第5卷,2011年。
    36. 歐陽弘,反傾銷稅的發展趨勢,月旦財稅實務釋評,第25期,2022年1月。
    37. 謝祖松,美國專利域外效力──兼論其對專利涉外民事案件審理之影響,興大法學,第17期,2015年5月。
    38. 顏承吉,專利侵權判斷要點於實務之整合,專利師,第26期,2016年7月。

    四、 碩博士學位論文
    1. 林彥廷,專利侵權損害賠償之研究──以專利權價值回復為中心,國立政治大學法律學系碩士論文,2020年6月。
    2. 李偉錡,專利侵權損害賠償──由美國法關照台灣智慧財產法院與最高法院判決,國立交通大學科技法律研究所,2017年7月。
    3. 陳瑋明,美國專利侵害合理權利金估算之因素分析,國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文,2012年。

    五、 法院裁判
    1. 最高法院107年度台上字第2359號判決
    2. 最高法院101年度台上字第230號判決
    3. 最高行政法院98年度判字第343號判決
    4. 最高法院89年度台上字第1754號判決
    5. 最高法院82年臺上字第2161號判決
    6. 最高法院89 年度台上字第1754號判決
    7. 智慧財產及商業法院111年度民專訴字第56號判決
    8. 智慧財產及商業法院110年度民專訴字第20號判決
    9. 智慧財產及商業法院109年度民專訴字第61號判決
    10. 智慧財產及商業法院109年度民專上字第9號判決
    11. 智慧財產法院108年度民專訴字第2號判決
    12. 智慧財產法院107年度民專訴字第114號判決
    13. 智慧財產法院107年度民專訴字第22號判決
    14. 智慧財產法院106年度民專上字第36號判決
    15. 智慧財產法院106年度民專訴字第30號判決
    16. 智慧財產法院106年度民專上字第18號判決
    17. 智慧財產法院106年度民專訴字第11號判決
    18. 智慧財產法院105年度民專訴字第68號判決
    19. 智慧財產法院105年度民專訴字第4號判決
    20. 智慧財產法院103年度民專訴字第112號判決
    21. 智慧財產法院103年度民專訴字第104號判決
    22. 智慧財產法院103年度民專上字第9號判決
    23. 智慧財產法院102年度民專訴字第123號判決
    24. 智慧財產法院102年度民專訴字第97號判決
    25. 智慧財產法院101年度民專訴字第41號判決
    26. 智慧財產法院101年度民專上更(二)字第2號判決
    27. 智慧財產法院101年度民專上字第10號判決
    28. 智慧財產法院100年度民專訴字第69號判決
    29. 智慧財產法院100年度民專上字第53號判決
    30. 智慧財產法院100年度民專上字第20號判決
    31. 智慧財產法院100年度民專上字第10號判決
    32. 智慧財產法院99年度民專訴字第66號判決
    33. 智慧財產法院97年度民專訴字第66號
    34. 臺灣高等法院103年度重上更(一)字第136號民事判決
    35. 臺灣高等法院台中分院93年度智上更(一)字第1號判決
    36. 臺中地方法院92年度智字第23號判決

    六、 官方文件
    1. 經濟部智慧財產局,專利侵權判斷要點,2016年
    2. 98年度智慧財產法律座談會彙編,2009年7月。

    七、 網路資料
    1. 李維心、汪漢卿、蔡惠如,智慧財產法院專利訴訟有效性及損害賠償之研究,2019年5月,https://ipc.judicial.gov.tw/tw/lp-265-091.html (最後瀏覽日:2023年9月15日)。
    2. 德國專利法,經濟部智慧財產局網站,2001年12月,https://www.tipo.gov.tw/tw/dl-581-94c6bcbcf74940acbd7aa9d57024d201.html(最後瀏覽日:2023年5月10日)
    3. 資策會產業情報研究所(MIC)網站,2023年11月,https://mic.iii.org.tw/news.aspx?id=655 (最後瀏覽日:2024年3月8日)。
    4. 半導體產業鏈簡介,產業價值鏈資訊平台,https://ic-test.tpex.org.tw/introduce.php?ic=D000 (最後瀏覽日:2024年3月8日)。

    貳、 英文文獻
    一、 書籍
    1. ANTHONY WILLIAM DELLER, WALKER ON PATENTS (1937).
    2. ALEXANDER STACK, INTERNATIONAL PATENT LAW-COOPERATION, HARMONIZATION AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF WIPO AND THE WTO (2011).
    3. C. BRADFORD BIDDLE ET AL., PATENT REMEDIES AND COMPLEX PRODUCTS—TOWARD A GLOBAL CONSENSUS (2019).
    4. FREDERICK M. ABBOTT ET AL., INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN AN INTEGRATED WORLD ECONOMY (4d ed. 2019).
    5. JOHN SKENYON ET AL., PATENT DAMAGES LAW AND PRACTICE (2019).
    6. ROBERT A. MATTHEWS, 4 ANNOTATED PATENT DIGEST (2024).
    7. RICHARD B. TROXEL & WILLIAM O. KERR, ASSETS AND FINANCES: CALCULATING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DAMAGES (2016).
    8. ROBERT L. HARMON ET AL., PATENTS AND THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT (12th ed., 2015).
    9. SIMON GREENLEAF, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (16th ed. 1899)
    10. THOMAS F. COTTER, PATENT WARS: HOW PATENTS IMPACT OUR DAILY LIVES (2018).
    11. THOMAS F. COTTER, COMPARATIVE PATENT REMEDIES—A LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (2013).
    12. WILLIAM F. PATRY, PATRY ON COPYRIGHT (rev. ed. 2020).

    二、 專書論文
    1. Craig Miles & David Weiss, Overview of Principles Reducing Damages, in GLOBAL ARBITRATION REVIEW: THE GUIDE TO DAMAGES IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION (John A. Trenor et., 2d ed. 2017).
    2. Thomas F. Cotter, A Research Agenda for the Comparative Law and Economics of Patent Remedies, in PATENT LAW IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE (Ruth L. Okediji & Margo A. Bagley eds., 2014).

    三、 期刊論文
    1. Amy L. Landers, Proximate cause and Patent Law, 25 B. U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 101 (2019).
    2. Amy L. Landers, U.S. Patent Extraterritoriality within the International Context, 35 REV. LITIG. 1 (2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2839897.
    3. Amy L. Landers, Patent Claim Apportionment, Patentee Injury, and Sequential Invention, 19 GEO. MASON L. REV. 471 (2012).
    4. Anne Layne-Farrar, The Patent Damages Gap: An Economist’s Review of U.S. Statutory Patent Damages Apportionment Rules, 26 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 31 (2018).
    5. David G. Owen, Problems in Assessing Punitive Damages Against Manufacturers of Defective Products, 49 U. CHI. L. Rev. 1 (1982).
    6. Heinz Goddar, Cross-Border Contributory Patent Infringement in Germany, 7 WASH. J. L. TECH. & ARTS 135 (2011).
    7. John M. Golden, Reasonable Certainty in Contract and Patent Damages, 30 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 257 (2017).
    8. John M. Golden, Principles of Patent Remedies, 88 TEX. L. REV. 505, 561-63 (2010).
    9. Jonathan Turley, “When in Rome”: Multinational Misconduct and the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality, 84 NW. U. L. REV. 598 (1990).
    10. J. Gregory Sidak, Holdup, Royalty Stacking, and the presumption of Injunctive Relief for Patent Infringement: A Reply to Lemley and Shapiro, 92 MINN. L. REV. 714 (2008).
    11. J. Gregory Sidak, How Relevant Is Justice Cardozo’s “Book of Wisdom” to Patent Damages?, 17 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 246 (2016).
    12. John Nash, The Bargaining Problem, 18 ECONOMETRICA, 155 (1950).
    13. Lea Brilmayer, The New Extraterritoriality: Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Legislative Supremacy, and the Presumption Against Extraterritorial Application of American Law, 40 SW. L. REV. 655 (2011).
    14. Maggie Gardner, Essay, RJR Nabisco and the Runaway Canon, 102 VA. L. REV. ONLINE 134 (2016).
    15. Mark A. Lemley, Distinguishing Lost Profits from Reasonable Royalties, 51 WM & MARY L. REV. 655 (2009).
    16. Mark A. Lemley, The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in IP Law, 103 IOWA L. REV. 245 (2017).
    17. Norman V. Siebrasse & Thomas F. Cotter, A New Framework for Determining Reasonable Royalties in Patent Litigation, 68 FLA. L. REV. 929 (2016).
    18. Robert Goldscheider, John Jarosz & Carla Mulhern, Use of the 25 Per Cent Rule in Valuing IP, 37 LES NOUVELLES 123 (2002).
    19. Roberto Romandini & Alexander Klicznik, The Territoriality Principle and Transnational Use of Patented Inventions-The Wider Reach of A unitary Patent and the Role of the CJEU, 44 IIC 524 (2013).
    20. Roger D. Blair & Thomas F. Cotter, Rethinking Patent Damages, 10 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 1 (2001)
    21. Spana Kumar, Patent Damages without Boders, 25 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L. J. 72 (2017).
    22. Stephen Yelderman, Proximate v.s. Geographic Limits on Patent Damages, 7 IP THEORY 1 (2018).
    23. Selinger & Jessica W. Young, Suing an Infringing Competitor’s Customers: Or, Life Under the Single Recovery Rule, 31 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 19 (1997).
    24. Ted Sichelman, Purging Patent Law of ‘Private Law’ Remedies, 92 TEX. L. REV. 517 (2014)
    25. Timothy R. Holbrook, Extraterritoriality and Proximate Cause after Western Geco, 21 YALE J. L. & TECH. 189 (2019).
    26. Timothy R. Holbrook, Boundaries, Extraterritoriality, and Patent Infringement Damages, 92 Notre DAME L. REV. 1745 (2017).
    27. Timothy R. Holbrook, Territoriality and Tangibility After Transocean, 61 EMORY L.J. 1087 (2012)
    28. Timothy R. Holbrook, Extraterritoriality in U.S. Patent Law, 49 WM. & MARY L. REV. 2119 (2008).
    29. Timothy R. Holbrook, Territoriality Waning? Patent Infringement for Offering in the United States to Sell an Invention Abroad, 37 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 701 (2004).
    30. Thomas F. Cotter, Extraterritorial Damages in Copyright Law, 73 Florida Law Review 19 (2022), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3825238.
    31. Thomas F. Cotter, Extra Territorial Damages in Patent Law, 39 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J.1 (2021).
    32. Thomas F. Cotter, Patent Damages Heuristics, 25 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 159 (2018).
    33. Thomas F. Cotter, Comparative Law and Economics of Standard-Essential Patents and FRAND Royalties, 22 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 311 (2014).
    34. Thomas F. Cotter, Four Principle for Calculating Reasonable Royalties in Patent Infringement Litigation, 27 SANTA CLARA COMP. & HIGH TECH. L. J. 725 (2011).
    35. Theodore Sedgwick, Arthur George Sedgwick & Joseph Henry Beale, Treatise on the Measure of Damages, § 126 (9th ed. 1912).
    36. William F. Lee & Douglas A. Melamed, Breaking the Vicious Cycle of Patent Damages, 101 CORNELL L. REV. 385 (2016).
    37. William S. Dodge, The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality in Two Steps, AJIL UNBOUND 45 (2016).

    四、 法院裁判
    1. ABS Glob., Inc. v. Inguran, LLC, Nos. 3:14-cv-00503, 3:17-cv-00446, 2020 WL 2405380 (W.D. Wis. May 12, 2020).
    2. Abbott Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., 2019 WL 2521305, (D. Del. June 6, 2019).
    3. ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Manufacturers Co., Ltd., 501 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
    4. Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 805 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
    5. ArcherDX, LLC v. Qiagen Scis., LLC, No. CV 18-1019 (MN), 2022 WL 4597877 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2022).
    6. Archerdx, LLC v. QIAGEN Scis., LLC, No. CV 18-1019 (MN), 2021 WL 3857460 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2021).
    7. Anan Kasei Co. Ltd v. Neo Chemicals & Oxides Ltd, [2023] EWCA Civ 11.
    8. Anan Kasei Co. Ltd v. Neo Chemicals & Oxides Ltd, [2022] EWHC 708 (Ch).
    9. Anan Kasei Co. Ltd v. Neo Chemicals & Oxides Ltd, [2019] EWCA Civ 1646.
    10. Barrett v. Hall, 2 F. Cas. 914 (D. Mass. 1818).
    11. BIC Leisure Products v. Windsurfing Intern, F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
    12. Brown v. Duchesne, 60 U.S.183 (1856).
    13. Brumfield, Tr. for Ascent Tr. v. IBG LLC, No. 2022-1630, 2024 WL 1292151 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2024).
    14. Brumfield , Tr. for Ascent Tr. v. IB LLC, 586 F. Supp. 3d 827 (N.D. Ill. 2022).
    15. BGH, Urteil vom 30. 1. 2007 – X ZR 53/04 – Funkuhr II.
    16. BGH, Urteil vom 16.05.2017 - X ZR 120/15 – Abdichtsystem.
    17. Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd., 807 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
    18. Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd., 986 F. Supp. 2d 574 (W.D. Pa. 2013).
    19. Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelectronics Int’l Inc., 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    20. Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc., 879 F.2d 820 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
    21. Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp 406 U.S. 518 (1972).
    22. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow Co., 235 U.S. 641(1915).
    23. EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (1991).
    24. Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
    25. Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
    26. Eagle Comtronics v. Arrow Comm. Labs, 305 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
    27. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), modified sub nom. Georgia Pacific. Corp. v. U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc., 446 F. 2d 295 (2d Cir. 1971).
    28. Goulds’ Manufacturing Co. v. Cowing, 105 U.S. 253 (1881).
    29. Gyromat Corp. v. Champion Spark Plug Co., 735 F.2d 549 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
    30. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 769 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
    31. Honeywell Intern. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 378 F. Supp. 2d 459 (D. Del. 2005).
    32. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA, 331 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
    33. Ketchum Harvester Co. v. Johnson Harvester Co., 8 F. 586 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1881).
    34. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013).
    35. K.W. Ignition Co. v. Temco Elec. Motor Co., 283 F. 873 (6th Cir. 1922).
    36. Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F. 3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
    37. L.A. News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int’l, Ltd., 149 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1998).
    38. Life Techs. Corp. v. Promega Corp., 137 S. Ct. 734 (2017).
    39. Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
    40. Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 681 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
    41. McBee v. Delica Co., 417 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2005).
    42. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007).
    43. MLC Intell. Prop. v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. 14-cv-03657, 2019 WL 2437073 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2019.
    44. Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. 561 U.S. 247 (2010).
    45. NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
    46. OLG Düsseldorf, 10.12.2009 - I-2 U 51/08.
    47. Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Brothers Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978).
    48. Paper Converting Mach. Co. v. Magna-Graphics Corp., 745 F.2d 11 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
    49. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., No. CV 04-1371 -LPS, 2018 WL 4804685
    50. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., No. CV 04-1371 -LPS, 2018 WL 4804685, (D. Del. Oct. 4, 2018).
    51. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., 904 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
    52. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
    53. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 2d 505 (D. Del. 2008).
    54. Plastronics Socket Partners, Ltd. v. Dong Weon Hwang, No. 218CV00014JRGRSP, 2019 WL 4392525 (E.D. Tex. June 11, 2019).
    55. Piper v. Brown 19 F. Cas. 722, 723 (C.C.D. Mass. 1873).
    56. Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
    57. RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016).
    58. SIMO Holdings Inc. v. H.K. uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd., 983 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
    59. SIMO Holdings Inc. v. H.K. uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd., 396 F. Supp. 3d 323 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).
    60. Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 106 F.2d 45, 48–51 (2d Cir. 1939).
    61. Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952).
    62. Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, 802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
    63. Tire Eng’g & Distribution, LLC v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co., 682 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2012).
    64. TMN Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Dura Corp., 789 F 2d 895 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
    65. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., 617 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
    66. Trader Joe’s Co. v. Hallatt, 835 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2016).
    67. United Horse Shoe and Nail v. John Stewart (1888) 13 App Cas 401
    68. Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1956).
    69. Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 3d 1070 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
    70. VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco System., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cor. 2014).
    71. W.H. Wall Fam. Holdings LLLP v. CeloNova Biosciences, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-303-LY, 2020 WL 1644003 (W.D. Tex. April 2, 2020).
    72. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical, 520 U.S. 17 (1997).
    73. WesternGeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018).
    74. WesternGeco L..L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., 913 F. 3d 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
    75. WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., 791 F.3d 1340, (Fed. Cir. 2015).
    76. WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., 953 F. Supp. 2d 731 (S.D. Tex. 2013).
    77. Yarway Corp. v. Eur-Control USA, Inc., 775 F.2d 268 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
    78. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 117 U.S. 536 (1886).
    79. 3D Sys., Inc. v. Aarotech Labs., Inc., 160 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

    五、 網路資料
    1. Dani Kass, Fairchild Strikes $175M Power Integrations Deal After 15 Years, LAW360, (Oct. 23, 2019), https://www.law360.com/articles/1212440 (last visited: Oct. 1, 2023).
    2. Don Clark, Marvell to Pay $750 Million in Settlement With Carnegie Mellon: Patent dispute between company, university related to computer disk drives, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (Feb. 17, 2016), https://www.wsj.com/articles/marvell-to-pay-750-million-in-settlement-with-carnegie-mellon-1455746246 (last visited: Oct. 1, 2023).
    3. Dennis Crouch, Infringing?: Offers (Made in the US) to Sell (Abroad), PATENTLY-O (Nov. 9, 2018), https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/11/infringing-offers-abroad.html (last visit: Febuary 25, 2024).
    4. Hoffman Eitle, Infringement of Process Patents based upon Cross-Border Acts under German Law (Sep. 24, 2021), https://www.jetro.go.jp/ext_images/world/europe/ip/pdf/HE_Report_for_JETRO_Cross_Border_Infringement_of_Process_Patents_in_Germany.pdf (last visit: May 11, 2023).
    5. Mami Hino, Naho Ebata, Shoichiro Kajinami (Abe, Ikubo & Katayama), Japan IP High Court’s first-ever decision allowing patent enforcement against infringing acts partially committed outside of Japan, KLUWER PATENT BLOG (Dec. 12. 2022), https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/12/12/japan-ip-high-courts-first-ever-decision-allowing-patent-enforcement-against-infringing-acts-partially-committed-outside-of-japan/ (last visited: March 10, 2024).
    6. Norman Siebrasse, Territoriality and Remedies for Transnational Infringement, SUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION BLOG (Oct. 27, 2017), http://www.sufficientdescription.com/2017/10/territoriality-and-remedies-for.html#more ((last visited: Feb. 16, 2024).
    7. Rainer A Kuhnen, Can a German patent cover acts committed outside Germany? IAM MEDIA (Apr. 24, 2013), https://www.iam-media.com/article/can-german-patent-cover-acts-committed-outside-germany (last visit: May 11, 2023).
    8. Sani Miyagi, Recent Case Law on the Extraterritorial Reach of Japanese Patents, IP Watchdog (Jun. 10, 2023), https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/06/10/recent-case-law-on-the-extraterritorial-reach-of-japanese-patents/id=162193/# (last visited: March 10, 2024).
    9. World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO-Administered Treaties, https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/ShowResults?search_what=A&act_id=26 (last visited: Feb. 6, 2024).
    10. 日本弁理士会, Updates on Extraterritorial Reach of Japan Patent Law for Internet-related Patents (Sep. 2023), https://www.jpaa.or.jp/en/cms/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Updates-on-Extraterritorial-Reach-of-Japan-Patent-Law.pdf (last visited: March 10, 2024).
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律學系
    109651010
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109651010
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Law] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    101001.pdf3943KbAdobe PDF1View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback