Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/59632
|
| Title: | 智財基金的核心資源與價值創造策略
Core Resources and Value Creation Strategies of Intellectual Property Fund |
| Authors: | 錢睿宏
Chien, Jui Hung |
| Contributors: | 李治安
Lee, Jyh An
錢睿宏
Chien, Jui Hung |
| Keywords: | 專利權
智財基金
專利未實施者
高智發明
智財銀行
Patent Right
Intellectual Property Fund
Non-Practicing Entity
Intellectual Venture
IP Bank |
| Date: | 2012 |
| Issue Date: | 2013-09-03 |
| Abstract: | 由於世界各國企業將智慧財產運用與加值的戰略地位不斷升高，使得除了企業對於智慧財產的渴求外，政府也必須將智慧財產的保護策略提升至國家思考層級。因此，各式各樣的專利聯盟成立與智財基金的出現，使得整個智財交易模式形成另一種嶄新的型態。本文主旨即在研究智財基金架構下的專利經營管理公司，如何使製造型企業體得到開放式創新的優勢。首先本文由開放性創新角度出發，討論企業如何藉由智慧財產加值創造競爭優勢，再討論專利未實施者（NPEs） 如何以專利訴訟對製造業產生營運上的威脅。接下來則是介紹目前世界上著名的各種智財基金及其營運方式，藉由觀察主要服務項目以及基金設立宗旨，可以了解製造型企業如何利用各種智財基金以創造自身策略優勢。本文將智財基金分為四類，並將前述已經介紹的智財基金進行分類；將各類別智財基金的營運方式作有系統化的整理。最後則是分析智財基金對於會員企業的網路效果，並說明企業選擇對該智財基金的因素以及繼續使用的誘因，藉以對未加入智財基金會員的企業作選擇上的建議。
Since enterprises over the world increasingly emphasize the importance of utilization and value-add activities, governments also use their resources to protect intellectual properties. Therefore, the occurrence of a variety of patent alliances and intellectual property funds renew the styles of the transaction of intellectual property. The main concept of this thesis is to research the patent intermediaries established by intellectual property fund, and their methodologies for enterprises to obtain the advantages of open innovation. In the beginning, this thesis starts from the theorem of open innovation, and discusses how enterprises create core competence by value-add of intellectual property, and the author focuses on the how non-practicing entities threaten enterprises by patent litigations. Then, this thesis introduces famous intellectual property funds and their management. By understanding their core business and purposes, we can realize how the enterprises utilize the funds to create their dominant strategies. In addition, the author categorize the aforementioned funds into four types, and state the business of those funds systematically. In the last part, this thesis analyze the network effect of the member enterprises, and address the reasons for the enterprises to choose the funds and the incentives to extent the contract. After reading this thesis, enterprises who didn’t have memberships can be properly suggested to choose an intellectual property fund.
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究範圍及架構 4
第三節 相關文獻回顧 5
第一項 開放性創新與智慧財產的關聯 6
第二項 專利經營管理公司的演變 10
第三項 企業競爭優勢與智財策略之關聯性 11
第四項 考慮專利組合的智慧財產策略 13
第二章 專利未實施者對製造型企業的威脅 15
第一節 專利未實施者之要脅行為 17
第二節 要脅行為的獲利模式 20
第三節 專利要脅行為的影響 22
第三章 專利聚集與智財基金的關聯性 30
第一節 專利聚集產生的原因 30
第一項 企業的競爭策略 31
第二項 智財基金的專利聚集策略 32
第二節 企業選擇參與智財基金的理由 34
第四章 企業選擇參與智財基金的理由 39
第一節 高智發明 40
第二節 Rational Patent Exchange，RPX 47
第三節 Allied Security Trust，AST 50
第四節 日本產業革新機構(INCJ) 53
第五節 韓國智財基金 58
第六節 歐洲智財基金 60
第七節 中國中以智庫 61
第八節 台灣工研院智財基金 63
第九節 德國專利選擇基金（Patent Select） 67
第十節 瑞士金米產品發展夥伴計畫（Golden Rice product development partnership） 69
第十一節 本章小結 72
第五章 智財基金分類型態 73
第一節 四種智財基金的型態與定義 73
第二節 販賣者類型智財基金 75
第三節 培育者類型智財基金 77
第四節 互助會類型智財基金 81
第五節 慈善家類型智財基金 84
第六章 智財基金的對企業會員的網路效果 87
第一節 財務導向的網路效果 87
第二節 策略導向的網路效果 89
第七章 結論 92
第一節 本文研究貢獻 92
第二節 本文在管理實務上之運用 94
第三節 研究建議 98
參考文獻 99
表目錄
表一 智財基金對企業的影響 35
表二 智財基金基本資料比較表 72
圖目錄
圖一 智財運用在封閉式經營與開放式經營的比較 9
圖二 智財基金與原始專利權人與被授權人的專利授權關係 34
圖三 高智發明的營運模式 46
圖四 RPX的營運模式 49
圖五 AST的經營流程 51
圖六 INCJ的投資決策過程 55
圖七 韓國政府建置智財基金的營運模式 59
圖八 台灣政府建構之智財基金的營運模式 64
圖九 台灣政府建構之智財基金與產學研界的關聯 66
圖十 四種智財基金的型態與分類 74
圖十一 販賣者類型智財基金的價值創造策略 78
圖十二 培育者類型智財基金的價值創造策略 81
圖十三 互助會類型智財基金的價值創造策略 84
圖十四 慈善家類型智財基金的價值創造策略 86
圖十五 智財基金的四種功能面向 95 |
| Reference: | 中文文獻
王承守、鄧穎懋（2007），《美國專利訴訟攻防策略運用》，頁 3-60。
吳宜靜、江成欣、林博文（2007），〈創新模式的新典範：開放式創新〉，《產業與管理論壇》，第 9 卷，第 3 期，頁 6-23。
周延鵬、官欣雨（2006），〈台灣研發機構智慧財產的營運模式與行銷機制〉，《政大智慧財產評論》，第 4 卷，第 1 期，頁 63-90。
施錦村、洪儒瑤（2006），〈光儲存產業相關產品專利集中授權模式之個案研究〉，《科技管理學刊》，第 11 卷，第 2 期，頁 1-32。
陳佳麟，(2002)。《專利侵害損害賠償之研究－從美國案例檢討我國專利損賠制度之設計實施，交通大學科技法研所碩士論文》，頁 7-10。
曾陳明汝、蔡明誠（2009），《兩岸暨歐美專利法》，頁 27-70。
馮震宇（1994），〈從美國司法實務看臺灣專利案件之假處分救濟〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第109期，頁32。
蔡明誠（1997），《發明專利之研究》，頁234。
鄭中人(2004)，〈專利權之行使與定暫時狀態之處分〉，《台灣本土法學》，第58期，頁110。
英文文獻
Acacia Research Corporation. (2010). Form 10-K Annual Report: Fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.
AIPLA. (2011). Report of the Economic Survey 2011. Retrieved from http://www.aipla.org/Pages/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2flearningcenter%2flibrary%2fbooks%2feconsurvey%2f2011%2f_layouts%2fAuthenticate.aspx%3fSource%3d%252Flearningcenter%252Flibrary%252Fbooks%252Feconsurvey%252F2011%252FDocuments%252FAIP&Source=%2Flearningcenter%2Flibrary%2Fbooks%2Feconsurvey%2F2011%2FDocuments%2FAIP
Allied Security Trust. (2010). Allied Security Trust Announces Availability of Major Patent Portfolio. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&tkr=NIPNY:US&sid=a_. V6TdpLql0
Aoki, R., & Schiff, A. (2008). Promoting access to intellectual property: patent pools, copyright collectives, and clearinghouses. R&D Management, 38(2), 189–204.
Berneman, L., Cockburn, I., Agrawal, A., & Iyer, S. (2009). U.S./Canadian Licensing In 2007-08: Survey Results. Les Nouvelles, (March), 1–8.
Bessen, J., Ford, J., & Meurer, M. (2011). The private and social costs of patent trolls (Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 11-45). Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/2011.html
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). The governance and performance of Xerox’s technology spin-off companies. Research Policy, 32(3), 403–421.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Chien, C. V. (2009). Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of high-tech Patents. North Carolina Law Review, 87, 1571–1615.
Christen, J. F., Olesrn, M. H. and Kjaer, J. S. (2005). The Industrial Dynamics of Open Innovation Evidence from the Transformation of Consumer Electronics. Research Policy, 34(10): 1533-1549.
Davis, L. (2004). Intellectual property rights, strategy and policy. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 13(5), 399–415.
Entezarkhheir, M. (2008). Patent Thicket and Market Value: An Empirical Analysis. February 2008. Retrieved from: http://economics/2008/0827.pdf
Ewing, T., Feldman, R. (2012). The Giants Among Us. Stanford Technology Law Review, 1, 1–63.
Ferraro, J., Fairbairn, D. (2004). IP Holding Comparnies and Infringement Litigation. The 5th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute, December 2, 2004
Fischer, T. & Henkel, J. (2012). Patent Trolls on Markets for Technology: An Empirical Analysis of Trolls Patent Acquisitions. Research Policy, 41(9), 1519–1533.
Geradin, D., Layne-Farrer, A., & Padilla, A. J. (2011). Elves or trolls? The role of non-practicing patent owners in the innovation economy (TILEC Discussion Paper No. 2008-018). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1136086
Golden, J. M. (2007). "Patent Trolls" and Patent Remedies. Texas Law Review, 2111–2161.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 109–122.
INCJ (2013). 平成24年度事業報告. Retrieved from http://www.incj.co.jp/PDF/report130701_01.pdf
Knight, H. J.(2001) Patent Strategy for Researchers and Research Managers. Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons.
Laursen, K., Salter, A. ( 2006). Open for Innovation: the Role of Openness in Explaining Innovation Performance among U.K. Manufacturing Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131-150.
Layne-Farrar, A. & Schmidt, K. (2009). Licensing complementary patents: `Patent trolls`, market structure, and `excessive` royalties (Working paper). Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/anne_layne_farrar/6/
Lehman, B. A. (1996). Intellectual Property: America’s Competitive Advantage in the 21st Century, The Columbia Journal of World Business, 31(1), 6-16.
Lemley, M. A. (2008). Are Universities Patent Trolls? Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 18, 611-641.
Magliocca, G. N. (2007). Blackberries and Barnyards: Patent Trolls and the Perils of Innovation. Notre Dame Law Review, 82(5), 1809–1838.
McDonough III, J. F. (2006). The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea. Emory Law Journal, 56(1), 189–228.
Merges, R. P. (2009). The trouble with trolls: Innovation, rent-seeking, and patent law reform. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 24(4), 1583–1614.
Merges, R. P., & Nelson, R. R. (1990). On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope. Columbia Law Review, 90(4), 839–916.
Miele, A. L. (2000). Patent Strategy: The Manager’s Guide to Profiting from Patent Portfolios. John Wiley & Sons.
Millien, R., Laurie, R. A. (2007). Summary of Established & Emerging IP Business Models. Proceedings of the Sedona Conference, Sedona, AZ. October 12, 2007
Nguyen, Xuan-Thao. (2005). Holding Intellectual Property. Georgia Law Review, 39(4): 1157-1198.
Paul J. C. (2005). Lost Profit Considerations for Patent-holding Companies Holding U.S. Patents. Global Intellectual Property Asset Management Report, March 18, 2005.
Phelps, M., Kline, D. (2009). Burning the Ships: Intellectual Property and the Transformation of Microsoft. John Wiley & Sons.
Pohlmann, T., Opitz, M. (2010). The Patent Troll Business: An Efficient Model to Enforce IPR? Retrieved from http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/documents/papers_EMAEE/pohlmann2.pdf
Reinhardt, D. (2008). Pre-licensing Consideration. The Licensing Journal, 28(5):15-21
Reitzig, M., Henke, J. and Heath, C. (2007). On Sharks, Trolls, and Their Patent Prey—Unrealistic Damage Awards and Firms’ Strategies of “Being Infringed”. Research Policy, 36(1): 134-154.
Rivette, K, G., Kline, D. (2000). Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents, Boston Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Robert A., Matthews, J. R. (2009). Legal Nuances When a Patent Holding Company Seeks to Enforce a US Patent. The Intellectual Property Law Review, 49(4): 550-578.
Rubin, S. (2007). Defending the Patent Troll: Why These Allegedly Nefarious Companies Are Actually Beneficial to Innovation. Journal of Private Equity, 10(4), 60–63.
Shrestha , S. K. (2010). Trolls or Market-makers? An Empirical Analysis of Non-practicing Entities. Columbia Law Review, 110(1): 114-160.
Siino, J. (2009). Dealing with IP Risk in the U.S.: Who Can Be Trusted? Koreal IT Times, December 4th, 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.ovidian.com/press/koreal.pdf
Smith, M., Hansen, F. (2002). Managing Intellectual Property: A Strategic Point of View. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(4): 366-374.
Thomas P. A. (2001). Relationship between Technology Indicators and Stock Market Performance. Scientometrics, 51(1): 319-333.
Wagner, R. P., Parchomovsky, G. (2005). Patent Portfolios. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(1): 1-71.
Wang, A. W. (2010). Rise of the Patent Intermediaries. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 25(1): 159-200. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
智慧財產研究所
98361006
101 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098361006 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML2 | 881 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
