政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/54228

政大典藏 > College of Law > Graduate Institute of Law and Interdisciplinary Studies > Theses > Item 140.119/54228

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54228

Title:	從廣達與LGE案看專利權耗盡之專利授權管理策略 From Quanta v. LGE to patent licensing management strategies
Authors:	黃苑菱 Cynthia Huang
Contributors:	馮震宇 Jerry Gen Yu Fong 黃苑菱 Cynthia Huang
Keywords:	權利耗盡廣達第一次銷售理論平行輸入散佈專利授權策略銷售後限制限制性銷售 Exhaustion Doctrine Quanta v. LGE First Sale Doctrine Post-sale restriction Licensing Strategy Conditional Sales Parallel Trade
Date:	2011
Issue Date:	2012-10-30 10:20:28 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	自從美國最高法院在廣達與LGE案中作出解釋後，便將權利耗盡理論亦稱為第一次銷售理論帶往另一個層次。此案已被普遍認為對於美國過去的判例影響甚鉅，對於產業界的商業活動發展更是具有深遠的影響。智慧財產權旨在保護發明及創造公眾利益間取得一平衡點，權利耗盡理論長久以來已被視為專利法中重要的一環，並藉以杜絕專利權人的過當控制。而最高法院對於第一次銷售理論的解釋，則進而撼動專利權人長此以往對限制性銷售策略的仰賴。即便銷售後限制(Post-sale restriction)確實提供了專利權人避免耗盡其權利的好方法，但專利權範圍則限縮了專利權人所享有的權利控制範圍，換言之，專利權人僅能擁有專利法所賦予的權利，且其加諸於被授權人的購買條件限制僅限於該專利之功能及使用目的。而超越該專利功能及使用目的的過分限制，則可能導致專利權濫用。而在開放WTO框架下，國際貿易的頻繁也使得權利耗盡衍生出了在散佈等方面的相關討論，平行輸入/輸出的議題亦隨著跨國交易的興盛而隨之重要。故此篇論文的研究目的不僅僅探討權利耗盡理論及其相關議題，更旨在藉由廣達案的啟發，提供台灣的IT產業一有效的專利授權策略，並提供不論專利權人或被授權人於制定授權契約時，能有一更具有策略性的思考方向。 The Supreme Court’s current decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. brings the exhaustion doctrine also known as first sale doctrine up to a new phase. This case is believed significantly overcome quite a lot of past precedents and will effectively influent industry business operations in the future. The core goal of intellectual property right aims to find a balance between protecting the incentives to create and innovate, and providing the benefits to public interests. Exhaustion doctrine has been long standing as part of patent law to prevent patentees’ over control. The interpretation made by Supreme Court regarding the first sale doctrine does vibrate the conditional sale strategies long believed by patentees. Now the Supreme Court brings the issue from the phase of patent law down to the contract law level. Subsequently, the litigations of antitrust and fair trade are therefore involved while patentees are tempting to make an “end-run” control over the downstream purchasers. Though applying post-sale restriction provides a way out for intellectual property owner from triggering the exhaustion, however, the scope of the patent claims determine how far the privilege is given to the inventors. A patent owner or licenser can only enforce its patent right while the right is truly granted by the patent law. Subsequently, the restriction set forth to limit the licensees or purchasers must be accordance with the function or feature of the patent claims for. On the contrary, the patentee intends to restrict its purchasers by holding the exclusive right which beyond the scope of the patent granted may result to patent misuse, for instance, the resale price maintenance, prohibition of manufacturing the competing products, the conditional license which incorporates another license, and overwhelming royalties on the price of the whole product instead of the actual usage of the patented article. Under WTO, the concern of intellectual property protection has become more critical in the perspective of international trade, different issues and disputes regarding exhaustion have also been generated. Not alike the traditional domestic exhaustion, the discussion regarding distribution has therefore been derived. Moreover, the issues related to parallel import/export are generated in accordance with the frequent cross-border transaction. The purpose of this research does not merely lead us look into the doctrine and restriction patentees used to impose for avoiding exhaustion. But I intend to further illustrate a guideline based on the inspiration from Quanta and the explanation of the Courts. This guideline should provide both patentees and licensees an orientation while considering making a licensing agreement.
Reference:	Bibliographies & References 1. Journals, Law Reviews, and References 1. Adorno, Carl L. et al., International IP Issues and Strategies, Aspatore (2009). 2. Baker & McKenzie et al., Guide To Intellectual Property In The IT Industry, Sweet & Maxwell, P217-220 (1998). 3. Costello, Kyle M., The State Of The Patent exhaustion doctrine, Post-Quanta v. L.G. Electronics, 18 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 237 (2010) 4. Dong, Yina, A patent exhaustion Exposition: Situating Quanta v. LGE in the Context of Supreme Court Jurisprudence, 2010 Stan. Tech. Law Review 2 (2010). 5. Dufresne, Andrew T., The exhaustion doctrine Revived? Assessing the Scope and Possible Effects of the Supreme Court’s Quanta Decision, 24 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 11 (2009) 6. Eisenhard et al., Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities and Challenges, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, 25-32 (2007) 7. Eisenhard et al., Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, 532-550 (1989) 8. Elmslie, Mark et el., Intellectual Property – The Lifeblood of Your Company, Chandos Publishing (2006). 9. Frank, Steven J., Intellectual Property for Managers and Investors, Cambridge University Press, P139-165 (2006). 10. Hashiguchi, Mizuki Sally, Recycling Efforts and Patent Rights Protection in the U.S. and Japan, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law (2008) 11. Heath, Christopher, Parallel Imports and International Trade, World Intellectual Property Organization Annual Meeting (1999). 12. Hope, Leonard J., The Licensed-Foundry Defense In Patent Infringement Cases: Time To Take Some Of The Steam Out Of Patent exhaustion?, 11 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 621 1994-1995 13. Katz, Ariel, What Antitrust Law Can (and Cannot) Teach About the First Sale Doctrine, University of Toronto - Faculty of Law (2011). 14. Kieff, F. Scott, Quanta v. LG Electronics: Frustrating Patent Deals by Taking Contracting Options off the Table? , Cato Supreme Court Review (2008). 15. Kobak, James B., Exhaustion of Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP and Fordham University School of Law. 16. Leaven, Tod Michael, Recent Development: The Misinterpretation of the Patent exhaustion doctrine and the Transgenic Seed Industry in Light of Quanta v. LG Electronics, 10N.C.J.L. & Tech. 119 (2008). 17. Leija, Javier M., The Patent Exhaustion Doctrine: Patent Holders’ Rights versus The Public’s Interests In Using The Invention, 2 Phoenix L. Rev. 163 (2009). 18. Lemley, Mark A, Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 1031, 1031 (2005). 19. Lin, Jia-Jun, The Impacts of China’s Antimonopoly Law on Foreign Investment Enterprises Operating Intellectual Property Rights, Thesis of MA Intellectual Property in National Chengchi University (2010). 20. May, Wireless Telecom Litigation-Qualcomm Reached Settlement with Broadcom for 891 Million, STPI (2009), URL = < http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2009/pclass_09_A026.htm>. 21. Pitkethly, Robert H., Intellectual Property Strategy in Japanese and UK Companies: Patent Licensing Decisions and Learning Opportunities, Research Policy 30, 425-442 (2001). 22. Reitzig, Markus, How Executives Can Enhance IP Strategy and Performance, MIT Salon Management Review 49, No.1 (2007) at 37-43. 23. Slotboom, Marco M., The Exhaustion of Intellectual Property Rights – Different Approaches in EC and WTO Law, J. World Intell. Prop. 421 24. Stack, Alexander J., Trips, Patent Exhaustion and Parallel Imports, J. World Intell. Prop. 657. 25. Stavropoulos, Nicos, "Interpretivist Theories of Law", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/law-interpretivist/> 26. Saunders et al, Research Methods for Business Students, 3rd Edition, Harlow: Financial Times :P Prentice Hall, P 476 (2000) 27. Taylor, S.J., & Bogdan, R., Qualitative Research Methods: The Search for Meanings, 2nd Edition, New York: John Wiley (1984) 28. Thompson, Scott E. et el., Moore’s Law – The Future of Si Microelectronics, Materials Today Vol.9, P20 (2006) 29. Tian, Yijun, The Impacts of the Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law on IP Commercialization in China & General Strategies for Technology-Driven Companies and Future Regulators, Duke Law & Technology Review No.004 (2010). 30. Tonf, Jared, You Pay For What You Get: The Argument For Allowing Parties To Contract Around Patent exhaustion, 46 Hous. L. Rev. 1711 (2010) 31. Valletti, Tommaso M. & Szymanski, Stefan, Parallel Trade, International Exhaustion and Intellectual Property Rights: A Welfare Analysis, LIV J. Indus. Econ. 499 (2006). 32. Westkamp, Guido, Intellectual Property, Competition Rules, and The Emerging Internal Market: Some Thoughts on The European exhaustion doctrine, Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review V.11 (2007) 33. Wegner, Harold C., International Patent exhaustion: Wither The Supreme Court? (2010) http://www.grayonclaims.com/storage/InternationalExhaustionApr19.pdf 34. Wegner, Harold C., Post-Quanta, Post-sale Patentee Controls, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 682 (2008) 35. Zain, Sammi, Quanta Leap or Much Ado about Nothing? An Analysis on the Effect of Quanta vs. LG Electronics, 20 Alb. L.J. Sci.&Tech. 67 (2010). 36. 王聖閔，電腦製造業基本資料，台灣經濟研究院產經資料庫 (2010)。 37. 王聖閔，筆記型電腦製造業基本資料，台灣經濟研究院產經資料庫 (2010)。 38. 朱延智，高科技產業分析，五南出版社 (2007)。 39. 余翔, 中國智慧財產權權利耗盡及產品平行輸入體制研究 – 基於最新修訂之中國專利法、商標法和著作權法, Science & Technology Law Review (2002)。 40. 余翔, 專利權之耗盡與專利品之平行輸入─歐體法律、實踐及相關理論剖析, 月旦法學, Vol. 64 (2000)。 41. 李森堙，談專利耗盡─一個為專利權畫界的原則，科技法律透析 (2007)。 42. 徐作聖、唐迎華、朱玫黛，高科技產業個案分析，全華科技圖書股份有限公司(2005)。 43. 張如心、潘文淵文教基金會，矽說台灣─台灣半導體產業傳奇，天下遠見出版股份有限公司 (2006)。 44. 張順教，高科技產業經濟分析，雙葉書廊有限公司 (2003) 45. 馮震宇，國際智慧財產權公約及國際發展趨勢International IP Conventions and Development Trends，經濟部智慧財產局 (2007)。 46. 賈碩頎，再生商品與專利侵害關聯性之研究─以噴墨印表機墨水匣專利案爭訟為中心，中興大學科技法律研究所碩士學位論文 (2007)。 47. 劉佩真，積體電路製造業基本資料，台灣經濟研究院產經資料庫 (2011)。 2. Cases 1. General Talking Pictures v. Western Electric, 305 U.S. 124 (1938) 2. Wilson v. Simpson, 50 U.S. 109, 123 (1850). 3. Bloomer v. McQuewan, 55 U.S. 539 (1852). 4. Mitchell v. Hawley, 83 U.S. 544 (1872) 5. Adams v. Burke., 84 U.S. 453 (1873) 6. Boesch v. Graff, 133 U.S. 697, 10 S.Ct. 378 (1890) 7. Hobbie v. Jennison, 149 U.S. 355 (1893) 8. U.S. v. General Electric, 272 U.S. 476, 47 S.Ct. 192 (1926) 9. U.S. v. Univis, 316 U.S. 241, 62 S.Ct. 1088 (1942) 10. Mallinckrodt v. Medipart, 976 F.2d 700 (Fed Cir. 1992) 11. LG v. Asustek, 248 F. Supp. 2d 912. 12. LG v. Bizcom, 453 F. 3d 1364, 79 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1443 (Fed Cir. 2006). 13. Quanta v. LG, 128 S. Ct. 2109 (2008). 14. Omega v. Costco, 541 F.3d 982 (Fed Cir. 2008). 15. Fujifilm Corporation v. Jazz Products LLC, 605 F. 3d 1366 (2010) 3. Rules and Regulations 1. 35 U.S.C. 273 Defense to infringement based on earlier inventor. 2. 35 U.S.C. 154. 3. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art.34, 35 (ex Article 28, 29 TEC) 4. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art.36 (ex Article 30 TEC) 5. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art.101 (ex Article 81 TEC) 6. Commission Regulation 2790/1999, 1999 O.J. (L336) 21 (EC). 7. Commission Regulation 772/2004, 2004 O.J. (L123) 11 (EC). 8. Commission Regulation 240/96, 1996 O.J. (L31) 2 (EC). 9. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). 10. Anti-Monopoly Law (P.R.C.), art. 55. 11. Patent Law of the People’s Republic China art. 11.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學法律科際整合研究所 98652014 100
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098652014
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Law and Interdisciplinary Studies] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
201401.pdf	975Kb	Adobe PDF2	1020	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...