English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51617928      Online Users : 521
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
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/109717


    Title: 美國新專利法中共同訴訟規定之研究：以涉台灣籍被告之司法判決為中心
    Authors: 陳秉訓
    Contributors: 科技管理與智慧財產研究所
    Keywords: 美國專利法;共同訴訟;2011 年專利法修正案;美國發明法;非實施個體
    United States patent law;joinder of parties;patent law amendment of 2011;America Invents Act;nonpracticing entity
    Date: 2015
    Issue Date: 2017-05-17 16:08:49 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 在美國國會制定 35 U.S.C. § 299 前，少數法院會以侵害同一件專利為由而將不相干的被告合併在同一個訴訟。此吸引非實施個體到該法院進行訴訟。為解決此問題，國會希望透過§ 299(b)以廢除少數法院的實務。美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院在 In re EMC Corp.案中也要求對不同被告的請求權主張間必須有實際的關連，共同訴訟才得以成立。CAFC 提出六個因素供下級法院判斷何時可准許共同訴訟。但是東德州區地方法院主要以「使用同樣來源的零件」為判斷因素，而其他法院卻不准許競爭者的共同訴訟。特別是在手機技術的案件中，東德州區地方法院會因被告產品使用同樣的零件而准許共同訴訟，但其他法院會認為不同的手機因為有不同的作業系統而為不同的產品，進而不准共同訴訟
    Before 35 U.S.C. § 299 was enacted, some minoritydistrict courts had permitted joinder of independent
    defendants only because they infringe the same patents. That gave a great incentive to nonpracticing
    entities to sue as many defendants as possible in one suit. To resolve this problem, Congress created § 299(b) to abrogate the minority view of joinder. The Federal Circuit in In re EMC Corp. also created a test requiring finding of “an actual link between the facts underlying each claim of infringement.＂The Federal Circuit provides six EMC factors for lower courts to determine permissive joinder. The Eastern District of Texas relies primarily on “the use of identically sourced parts＂to find joiner, while other district courts have denied joinder of direct competitors. Particularly, in mobile phone technology cases, the Eastern District of Texas has permitted joinder only because the same hardware component is used, while other courts may find misjoinder only because mobile devices of one manufacturer＇s operational system are not the same as mobile devices of another manufacturer＇s operational system.
    Relation: MOST 103-2410-H-004-214
    Data Type: report
    Appears in Collections:[科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 國科會研究計畫

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    103-2410-H-004-214.pdf797KbAdobe PDF2311View/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