Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/32828
|
| Title: | 論競爭法對生物科技研究工具專利授權之規制—以延展性權利金(reach-through royalty)條款為中心 |
| Authors: | 焦子奇
Chiao, Tzu-Chi |
| Contributors: | 吳秀明
Wu, Shiow-Ming
焦子奇
Chiao, Tzu-Chi |
| Keywords: | 延展性權利金
研究工具專利
專利授權
競爭法
reach-through royalty
research tool patent
patent licensing
competition law |
| Date: | 2004 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-17 14:32:07 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本論文主要是在探討延展性權利金(reach-through royalty)條款的競爭法規制。首先，本文對於研究工具專利及延展性權利金條款的意義及概念作一說明，接著簡介目前各國之競爭法制與專利法制的權衡概況，並探討一些與延展性權利金條款有關之授權條款，以了解目前競爭法對於延展性權利金條款所可能導致之相關效應的評價，作為後續分析該條款適法性的基礎，再來整理美國實務及學說對於延展性權利金條款的看法，最後綜合檢討相關論述，提出本文見解。經研究後，本文認為，延展性權利金條款有其促進競爭效應(如提供風險分攤機制、幫助起始公司解決現金壓力問題以及提供授權雙方較佳的協商估價基礎)亦有其限制競爭效應(如降低被授權人研發誘因而有限制研發的效果及權利金堆疊效應)，因此一概禁止或一概允許此種條款皆非適當，而應視個案情形依合理原則的標準加以權衡，以決定系爭行為的適法性。
The present article discusses the antitrust regulation for reach-through royalty provisions which mainly used in biotechnology research tool patent licensing. First, this article introduces the meanings of research tool patent and reach-through royalties. Second, it illustrates antitrust regulations for patent licensing in foreign countries specifically in U.S., European Union, together with R.O.C. and, furthermore, it also discusses provisions similar or related to reach-through royalties. Third, this article introduces the discussions about reach-through royalty provisions in U.S., including the NIH Guideline, case law regulations and other related discussions by scholars. Finally, the present article analyzes the effects of reach-through royalties more deeply based on the mentioned discussions and makes a suggestion for the regulation of reach-through royalties. This article argues: since reach-through royalties have both anti-competitive and pro-competitive effects, a total ban or allowance is not appropriate and a “rule of reason” inspection should be applied to such provisions for better efficiencies. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部分
(一) 書籍
1. 王世仁、王世堯，《智慧財產權剖析—論生物科技專利策略與實務》，全華科技圖書股份有限公司，92年6月，初版一刷。
2. 公平交易委員會，《公平交易法之註釋研究系列(一) 第一條至第十七條》，公平交易委員會，2004年。
3. 吳秀明，《競爭法制之發韌與展開》，元照出版有限公司，2004年11月，初版1刷。
4. 陳家駿 羅怡德，《公平交易法與智慧財產權-以專利追索為中心》，五南圖書出版有限公司，88年11月，初版一刷。
5. 張清溪、許嘉棟、劉鶯釧、吳聰敏，《經濟學理論與實際》，漢蘆圖書，1995年8月，三版。
6. 賴源河編審，《公平交易法新論》，元照出版有限公司，2002年10月，二版一刷。
7. 廖義男，《公平交易法之理論與立法》，三民書局，84年10月，初版。
(二) 期刊文獻
1. 李素華，〈專利及專門技術授權與公平法規範-研析審理技術授權協議案件處理原則〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，民國90年7月，頁3-36。
2. 李素華，〈歐盟執委會研擬增修技術移轉法令〉，《科技法律透析》，2004年3月，頁20-24。
3. 李憲佐、吳翠鳳、沈麗玉，〈公平交易法第十九條規範之檢討-以「有限制競爭或妨礙公平競爭之虞」為中心〉，《公平交易法施行十週年回顧與前瞻學術研討會論文集》，頁215-285。
4. 吳秀明，〈十年來公平交易法上之獨占管制〉，《競爭法制之發韌與展開》，元照出版有限公司，2004年11月，初版1刷，頁309-380。
5. 吳秀明，〈避難到不公平競爭的聯合行為管制〉，《競爭法制之發韌與展開》，元照出版有限公司，2004年11月，初版1刷，頁83-139。
6. 范建得，〈知識型新興產業之公平交易規範〉，《第十屆競爭政策與公平交易法學術研討會論文集》，頁1-40。
7. 范建得，〈註釋公平交易法-第十條〉，《公平交易法之註釋研究系列(一) 第一條至第十七條》。
8. 黃銘傑，〈公平法第十九條之規範原理與架構〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第69期，元照出版有限公司，2004年11月，初版1刷。
9. 楊宏暉，〈創新誘因的維護與競爭法規範-以專利拒絕授權為例〉，《公平交易季刊》，第十二卷第二期，93年4月，頁67-112。
10. 蔡明誠，〈基因技術與發明專利〉，《生物科技與法律研究通訊》，第十一卷，2001年，頁19-41。
11. 劉靜怡，〈公平交易法與科技產業的智慧財產權授權問題初探：美國經驗的借鏡〉，《第十屆競爭政策與公平交易法學術研討會論文集》，頁661-695。
12. 謝銘洋，〈從德國法及歐洲共同體規範之觀點探討專利權之行使與競爭法之關係(上)〉，《植根雜誌》第十卷第十二期，頁447-471。
13. 謝銘洋，〈從德國法及歐洲共同體規範之觀點探討專利權之行使與競爭法之關係(下)〉，《植根雜誌》第十一卷第二期，頁1-9。
14. 謝銘洋，〈智慧財產權與公平交易法之關係-以專利權為中心〉，《台大法學論叢》，第二十四卷第二期，頁495-584。
15. 謝銘洋，〈智慧財產權之概念與法律體系〉，《台大法學論叢》，第二十四卷第一期，頁411-442。
16. 謝銘洋，〈契約自由原則在智慧財產權授權契約中之運用及其限制〉，《台大法學論叢》，第二十三卷第一期，頁309-330。
(三) 學位論文
1. 何愛文，《論專利法制與競爭法制之關係-從保護專利權之正當性談起》，台灣大學法律研究所博士論文，民國92年。
2. 陳雅娟，《美國法上專利權濫用原則之研究—於專利授權之適用》，國立中正大學法律研究所碩士論文，民國85年。
3. 黃姵菁，《專利權濫用之比較研究—從與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定第四十條出發》，私立東吳大學法律研究所碩士論文，民國93年。
4. 楊宏暉，《競爭法對搭售行為之規範》，政治大學法律研究所碩士論文，90年。
5. 蔡宜芯，《專利集中授權之法律規範--以競爭法為中心》，台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文，民國92年。
6. 劉棠必，《研究除外原則在專利法架構下之問題研究—以我國現階生物科技學術研發之特質為例》，國立清華大學碩士學位論文，民國92年。
7. 賴安國，《智慧財產權行使與獨占經濟力濫用》，台北大學法律研究所碩士論文，民國93年。
8. 簡秀如，《論專利侵權損害賠償範圍之確定》，政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文，民國92年。
(四) 網站文章
1. 何建志，生物技術專利之最適範圍：產業政策與法律分析，http://www.econ.nthu.edu.tw/news/paper/The%20Optimal%20Scope%20for%20Biotechnology%20Patents%2006.doc，最後造訪日：2005年1月15日。
2. 武漢晚報，否認破壞人類基因組訊息的免費共享，http://book.people.com.cn/big5/paper88/78/class008800001/hwz53490.htm，最後造訪日：2005年1月15日。
3. 國立台灣大學生化科技系及微生物與生化學研究所，生物技術相關名詞解釋，http://biotech.nsc.gov.tw/doc/92/http|//140.112.78.220/~juang/JRH/biotech.html，最後造訪日：2005年1月15日。
4. 建構Science Commons的提案(作者不詳)， http://www.creativecommons.org.tw/?ProjectsSciencPproposal，最後造訪日：2005年1月15日。
二、英文部分
(一) 書籍
1. Steven D. Anderman, EC Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: The Regulation of Innovation, Oxford University Press, 1998.
2. David Bender, Intellectual Property Antitrust, Practicing Law Instituse, 1995.
3. William C. Holmes, Intellectual Property and Antitrust, West Pub. Co., 1994.
4. Herbert Hovenkamp, Mark D. Janis, Mark A. Lemley, IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law, Aspen Law & Business, 2003.
5. William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003.
6. John P.Walsh et al., Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, The National Academies Press, 2003.
(二) 期刊論文
1. Sheila F. Anthony, Antitrust and Intellectual Property Law: From Adversaries to Partners, AIPLA Quarterly Journal, Winter 2000, pp.1-37.
2. Atif I. Azher, Antitrust Regulators and the Biopharmaceutical Industry: Compulsory Licensing Schemes Ignoring Gene Therapy Patient’Needs, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, Spring 2004, pp.383-421.
3. John H. Barton, Patents and Antitrust: A Rethinking in Light of Patent Breadth and Sequential Innovation, Antitrust Law Journal, Winter, 1997, pp.449-465.
4. John H. Barton, Research-tool patents: issues for health in the developing world, Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2002, 80 (2), 2002, pp.121-125.
5. Knox Bell, Win/Win Licensing University to Biotechnology Company, Biotechnology Law Report, Febuary, 2003, pp.9-16.
6. Michelle Cai, Madey v. Duke University: Shattering the Myth of Universities’ Experimental Use Defense, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2004, pp.175-191.
7. Christopher R. Carroll, Selling the Stem Cell: The Licensing of the Stem Cell Patent and Possible Antitrust Consequences, University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology and Policy, Fall 2002, pp.435-466.
8. James Gregory Cullem, Panning for Biotechnology Gold: Reach-Through Royalty Damage Awards for Infringing Uses of Patented Molecular Sieves, IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, 1999, pp.553-567.
9. Natalie M. Derzko, In Search of a Compromised Solution to the Problem Arising from Patenting Biomedical Research Tools, Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, January 2004, pp.347-410.
10. Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Technology Transfer and the Genome Project: Problems with Patenting Research Tools, Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, Spring, 1994, pp.163-175.
11. Rebecca Eisenberg, Patenting Genome Research Tools and the Law, Comptes Rendus Biologies 326, 2003, pp.1115-1120.
12. Paul F. Fehlner, Biotech Research Tools, National Law Journal, July 2000, p.B9.
13. Robin C. Feldman, The Insufficiency of Antitrust Analysis for Patent Misuse, Hasting Law Journal, December, 2003, pp.399-449.
14. Gerald J. Flattmann and Jonathan M. Kaplan, Licensing Research Tool Patents, Nature Biotechnology volume 20, September, 2002, pp.945-947.
15. John J. Flynn, Antitrust Policy, Innovation Efficiencies, and the Suppression of Technology, Antitrust Law Journal, 1998, pp.487-525.
16. Michael A. Heller, The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets, Havard Law Review, January 1998, pp.621-687.
17. Michael A. Heller and Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, Science vol. 280, May 1998, pp.698-701.
18. Kelly Hershey, Annual Review of Law and Technology: Scheiber v. Dolby Laboratories, Inc., Berkeley Tech. Law Journal, 2003, pp.159-174.
19. Steven J. Hultquist, Reach-Through Royalties: The Scope of Research Tool Patents, Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, April 2004, pp.285-290.
20. Jannifer J. Johnson, The Experimental Use Exception in Japan: A Model for U.S. Patent Law?, Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, March 2003, pp.499-533.
21. James B. Kobak, Inllectual Property, Competition Law and the Hidden Choices Between Original and Sequential Innovation, Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, Fall 1998, pp.1-44.
22. Janice M. Mueller, No “Dilettante Affair”: Rethinking the Experimental Use Exception to Patent Infringement for Biomedical Research Tools, Washington Law Review, January 2001, pp.1-66.
23. David W. Opderbeck, The Penguin’s Genome, or Coase and Open Source Biotechnology, Havard Journal of Law and Technology, Fall 2004, p.167-227.
24. Arti K. Rai, Fostering Cumulative Innovation in the Biopharmaceutical Industry: the Role of Patents and Antitrust, Berkeley Law Journal, Spring 2001, pp.813-853.
25. Heather Hamme Ramirez, Defending the Privatization of Research Tools: An Examination of the ‘Tragedy of the Anticommons’ in Biotechnology Research and Development, Emory Law Journal, Winter 2004, pp.359-388.
26. Charles Raubicheck, Barry S. White, Thomas J. Kowalski, Daniel G. Brown, Amy Leahy, Pamela Fekete, Integra v. Merck: A mixed bag for research tool patents, Nature Biotechnology Volume 21 Number 9, September 2003, pp.1099-1101.
27. Sandra Schmieder, Scope of Biotechnology Inventors in the United States and in Europe, Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, November, 2004, pp.163-234.
28. Rochelle K. Seide et al., Drafting Claim for Biotechnology Inventions, 14th Annual Advanced Patent Prosecution Workshop: Claim Drafting & Amendment Writing, November 15, 2004, pp.665-750.
29. Rochelle K. Seide and Michelle LeCointe, How to Value a Research Tool, IP Law and Business Vol. 04, November, 2004, pp.23-25.
30. Deborah A. Somerville and Kathryn M. Lumb, Development in the US biotech industry: focus on research tool patents, Building and enforcing IP value, 2004, pp.158-162.
31. Michael J. Stimson, Damages for Infringement of Research Tool Patents: the Reasonableness of Reach Through Royalies, Stanford Technology Law Review, 2003, pp.1-56.
32. James Stuart, The Academic-Industrial Complex: A Warning to Universities, University of Colorado Law Review, Summer 2004, pp.1011-1064.
33. Pat Treacy and Thomas Heide, The New EC Technology Transfer Block Exemption, European Intellectual Property Review, 2004, pp.414-420.
(三) 網站文章
1. ABA, The Economic of Innovation : A Survey, 2002, available at http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/0207salabasrvy.pdf, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
2. Nicky Androsov, How Far Should Biotech patents extent?, available at http://www.currentdrugdiscovery.com/pdf/2001/3/3complete.pdf, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
3. Australian Law Reform Commission, Patents and Human Genetic Research, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/99/12.html, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
4. John H. Barton, IP and Other Exclusive Rights in the Pharmaceutical Industry , available at http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/cgsd/events/documents/barton.ppt, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
5. Miranda M. Biven and Matthew R. Cohen, Reach-Through Royalties in Research Tool Licenses: Bayer AG v Housey Pharmaceuticals, winter, 2002, available at http://www.kirkland.com/files/tbl_s14Publications/Document1303/845/Kirkland_BioUpdate.pdf, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
6. Vicky Clark, Pitfalls in drafting royalty provisions in patent licences, June 29 2004, available at http://pharmalicensing.com/features/disp/1087832097_40d70021d738c, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
7. Crewell, The FTC / DOJ hearings on competition and IP law and policy continued on Tuesday, February 26, with a full-day session at the University of California, Berkeley, available at http://www.crowell.com/content/Expertise/Antitrust/Antitrustinthenews/20023/DOJschedule.htm, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
8. Rebecca S. Eisenberg，Reaching Through the Genome，2003， available at http://law.wustl.edu/Academics/Faculty/Bios/Kieff/HGPIP/Final/GEN_50_CH10.pdf, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
9. Steven J. Frank, “Do Reach-Throughs Overreach?”, Intellectual Property Today, November, 2003, available at http://www.tht.com/pubs/external/frank/iptodaynov03.pdf, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
10. Philip Grubb, How Real Are Patent Thickets, Reach-through Rights, Royalty Stacking, and Dependency, and Freedom-to-Operate Restrictions?, available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/4/1817832.pdf, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
11. Thomas J. Kowalskiis and Christian M. Smolizza, Reach-Through Licensing: A US Perspective, July, 2000, available at http://pharmalicensing.com/features/disp/963567614_396edffe132c5, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
12. Evelyn H. McConathy and Dilworth Paxson , Research Tools in Biotechnology, 2000, available at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/step/McConathy_ppt, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
13. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develpoment (OECD), Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Practices, 2002, available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/21/2491084.pdf, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
14. David L. Parker, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, Legal Highlights, 2003, available at http://www.autm.net/newsletter/archive/2003mayjune/article3.asp, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
15. The Signals staff，Is the alliance deck becoming "anti-stacked" against innovators?，Singal Magazine，May 29, 1998，available at http://www.signalsmag.com/signalsmag.nsf/657b06742b5748e888256570005cba01/ffd2cf3f7f7ea56f8825661200697ce3?OpenDocument, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
16. Andrew W. Torrance, After the Gene Rush, 2002, available at http://www.bio-itworld.com/archive/111202/insights_rush.html, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
17. John P. Walsh and Wesley M. Cohen, Research Tool Patenting and Licensing and Biomedical Innovation, February 21, 2003, available at http://sippi.aaas.org/utt/WalshetalAAAS.pdf, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
18. William L. Warren, E.Cary Miller, Kathryn H. Wade, Experimental Uses and Research Tool Licensing, 2004, available at http://www.techlinks.net/articleNew.cfm?articleurl=82004164258, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
19. Wilko van Weert, Technology Licensing - The new competition rules -, August 2004, available at http://www.les-scandinavia.org/tampere2004/Download/Technology_Licensing.pdf, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005.
20. John Wilkinson et.al, Early Stage Biotechnology Collaborations, Practical Law Company, June, 2003, available at http://pharmalicensing.com/features/disp/1054806563_3edf1223618ab, last visited on Jan, 15, 2005. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
法律學研究所
90651038
93 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0906510382 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [法律學系] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
