[{"subject":"評析臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例第93條之1修法與實務之若干議題","dataClassName":null,"pubUnitName":"科技法律研究所","posterDate":null,"updateDate":null,"detailContent":"<strong><span style=\"font-size:115%;\"><span style=\"color:#990000;\">Commentaries on Selected Issues of the Article 93-1 of Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area</span></span></strong><br />\r\n<strong>作者：</strong>吳盈德<br />\r\n<strong>出版年月：</strong>201909<br />\r\n<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例；陸資；違法投資；行政罰法；連續處罰；The Act Governing Relations between the People of theTaiwan Area and the Mainland Area；Funds from China；Illegal Investments；Administrative Punishments；PenalizedContinuously​​​​​​​<br />\r\n<br />\r\n<strong><span style=\"background-color:#f1c40f;\">中文摘要</span></strong><br />\r\n臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例自1992年7月31日制定公布，同年9月18日施行以來，先後歷經16次修正。鑑於目前出現大陸資金未經主管機關許可來臺從事投資，影響我國資本市場秩序，本次修法將調高陸資未經許可來臺投資之罰鍰上限，並將陸資投資事業規避主管機關檢查納入裁罰對象，以遏止陸資違法投資或違規之行為，另考量實務上不乏小額投資違規態樣，宜由主管機關依違法情節輕重及比例原則進行裁處。此次修正條文第93條之1，將陸資未經許可來臺投資之罰鍰，由現行12萬元至60萬元，修正為12萬元至2,500萬元，主管機關可依違法情節輕重及比例原則，處以罰鍰。另依據行政罰法第18條，若違法來臺陸資所得之利益，超過法定罰鍰最高額2,500萬元，相關機關可再加以裁罰，不受法定罰鍰最高金額之限制。另外，此次修法也新增限期改正，否則可要求其撤資，並得連續處罰至改正為止，相信可適用於大部分的案件，未來特殊案件也可思考如何予以強化。​​​​​​​<br />\r\n<br />\r\n<strong><span style=\"background-color:#f1c40f;\">英文摘要</span></strong><br />\r\nThe Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and theMainland Area was established on July 31, 1992 and enforced on September 18thof the same year with 16 amendments. Recently Taiwan&#39;s financial market was inchaos due to unauthorized investments from China. To prevent such unlawful investmentsand transactions, this amendment will raise and maximize the fine forunauthorized investments from China, as well as set up an executive departmentresponsible for putting the unlawful investors from China under investigation andmaking them liable. Considering the many actual cases involving illegal investmentsin small monetary value, it is most appropriate for the authority to determinethe punishment based on the illegal action&#39;s level of significance.This amendment of Article 93-1 shall change the scale of fines for unauthorizedinvestments from China from the initial range of NT＄ 120,000 to NT＄ 600,000 to become NT＄ 120,000 to NT＄ 25,000,000. The authorities who arefound to be linked to said illegal investments will also be punished according to thedegree of severity and proportion of the violations with a fine. In addition, based onArticle 18 of the Administrative Penalty Law, whereas the benefits of the unlawfulinvestment in Taiwan exceed the maximum legal penalty of NT＄ 25 million, therelevant organizations may impose additional punishments that are not limited bythe stated maximum value of penalty. Moreover, the amendment also adds a timelimit restriction for correction and if not satisfied, the investor will be demanded towithdraw their shares and be punished continuously until corrective action is done.This is believed to be appropriate for most cases. The article will be furtheramended in the future upon the occurrence of special cases.<br />\r\n​​​​​​​","summary":"","liaisonper":null,"liaisontel":null,"liaisonfax":null,"liaisonemail":null,"docs":[{"fileurl":"https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396861258996649984&type=s","pdffileurl":"","odffileurl":"","expFile":"評析臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例第93條之1修法與實務之若干議題"}],"images":[],"videos":[],"audios":[],"resources":[]},{"subject":"標準必要專利FRAND權利金計算──兼論智慧財產法院105年度民專上字第24號判決","dataClassName":null,"pubUnitName":"科技法律研究所","posterDate":null,"updateDate":null,"detailContent":"<strong><span style=\"font-size:115%;\"><span style=\"color:#990000;\">FRAND Royalties for Standard Essential Patents and Case Review of Philips v. Gigastorage in Taiwan IP Court</span></span></strong><br />\r\n<strong>作者：</strong>莊弘鈺；鍾京洲；劉尚志<br />\r\n<strong>出版年月：</strong>201909<br />\r\n<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>人工智慧；人工智慧創作品；繪畫機器人；著作權保護；聘雇著作；職務著作；Artificial Intelligence (AI)；AI-Generated Work；Painting Robot；Copyright Protection；Work-Made-for-Hire；Work- Made-for-Position<br />\r\n<br />\r\n<strong><span style=\"background-color:#f1c40f;\">中文摘要</span></strong><br />\r\n本文回顧各國法院關於標準必要專利公平、合理、無歧視（FRAND）之權利金計算所作成之司法判決，從比較研究之觀點進行分析及歸納。自美國法院於2013年作成第一個關於標準必要專利FRAND權利金計算的判決，各國法院在FRAND權利金計算的議題上，已陸續發展出許多值得參考的判決與方法論。本文深入個案進行判決之研究，從中萃取重要之計算方法與論理，描繪出可供依循之FRAND權利金計算架構，而各國法院採納之具體方法論以「由上而下法」與「可比較授權法」為主流，有僅採用其中一種方法，亦有見兩種方法並用作為交叉檢驗者，決定出標準必要專利最終之FRAND權利金費率。其後聚焦我國智慧財產法院105年度民專上字第24號判決，並就飛利浦與國碩公司間損害賠償額之決定，以各國相關司法判決為借鏡，分別解析一、二審法院計算賠償數額之方法論。本文主張可比較授權之授權金應僅為計算合理權利金之起始點，仍應將系爭專利貢獻度納入考量進行分配，俾使個案中合理權利金之數額能適度，避免專利箝制與權利金堆疊的風險。故期待本文對FRAND權利金計算之比較研究觀察與啟示，能作為資訊通訊產業界與我國司法實務界面臨相關爭議時之參考。<br />\r\n<br />\r\n<strong><span style=\"background-color:#f1c40f;\">英文摘要</span></strong><br />\r\nThe article reviews judicial decisions of fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory(&ldquo;FRAND&rdquo;) royalties in various jurisdictions. Starting with Microsoft v. Motorolain 2013, the first FRAND royalty decision ever made, courts from different juris- dictions have addressed their opinions on how to determine FRAND royalties. Afterexploring rationales in each case, the article then extracts useful approaches andkey implications for determining FRAND royalties in order to depict an applicableframework. Courts now primarily consider either &ldquo;top down approach&rdquo; or &ldquo;comparablelicense analysis,&rdquo; or even both as a reliable cross-check, to come up with finalFRAND royalties for SEPs in suit. The article further focuses on Philips v. Gigastorage, a controversial patent infringement case where Taiwan Intellectual PropertyCourt awarded the patentee (Philips) an outrageous amount of damages. The articlerespectively analyzes and discusses the methodology the court adopted in its firstand second instance. The article then suggests that under the comparable licenseanalysis, royalties from a comparable license should be considered as a startingpoint for the calculation, and that the court should further consider apportioningeconomic value of the infringed patent(s) from the entire patent portfolio. The considerationcould help avoid risk of patent hold-up and royalty stacking. The implicationsand trends in the article may shed some light on future FRAND royalty calculation, for corporations in the global telecommunications arena as well as for thejudiciary in Taiwan.<br />\r\n&nbsp;","summary":"","liaisonper":null,"liaisontel":null,"liaisonfax":null,"liaisonemail":null,"docs":[],"images":[],"videos":[],"audios":[],"resources":[]},{"subject":"人工智慧創作品之著作權保護──從繪畫機器人談起","dataClassName":null,"pubUnitName":"科技法律研究所","posterDate":null,"updateDate":null,"detailContent":"<strong><span style=\"font-size:115%;\"><span style=\"color:#990000;\">Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Work&ndash;From the Discussion of Painting Robots</span></span></strong><br />\r\n<strong>作者：</strong>毛舞雲<br />\r\n<strong>出版年月：</strong>201909<br />\r\n<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>人工智慧；人工智慧創作品；繪畫機器人；著作權保護；聘雇著作；職務著作；Artificial Intelligence (AI)；AI-Generated Work；Painting Robot；Copyright Protection；Work-Made-for-Hire；Work- Made-for-Position<br />\r\n<br />\r\n<strong><span style=\"background-color:#f1c40f;\">中文摘要</span></strong><br />\r\n本文首先透過繪畫機器人之介紹，使讀者理解機器人獨立自主從事創作之情境，並進而激發問題意識：當機器人已具備某種感知能力，能夠自行生成人類所無法預知內容的作品（AI-generated work，以下簡稱「人工智慧創作品」）時，著作權相關規範應如何調整以因應此種新興作品之保護？為回應此一議題，本文主要分為法律與政策兩方面探討：在法律方面，參考英國立法例，初步建議可於著作權相關規範中將人工智慧創作品納入保護，其具體內容考量法律安定性，則考慮透過擬制既有制度以填補目前法制空缺，經檢視現行著作權法規範中與人工智慧創作品之創作邏輯最為接近者，發現聘雇著作的法理與人工智慧創作品有一定相似性，其中又以職務著作最為接近，故似可以此作為人工智慧創作品擬制之依據；另在政策方面，為求人工智慧創作品之長期且全面性發展，初步建議可參考日本之相關討論，設立跨部會整合之專責機構加以統籌擘劃。本文結論強調，賦予此一新型態創作品法律位階的保護，且以人類為權利主體，始能達到創造誘因、激勵創新之目的，才更有機會建立一個正向循環的人工智慧經濟，並期待政策上將人工智慧創作品納入人工智慧產業之整體規劃，以使產業全面發展。<br />\r\n<br />\r\n<strong><span style=\"background-color:#f1c40f;\">英文摘要</span></strong><br />\r\nStarting with newly-invented painting robots, this article hopes to inspirereaders&#39; awareness of current issue: how to modify copyright framework, when therobot is perceptive and capable of generating unpredictable artwork? This articletries to respond this issue from two perspectives of law and policy. Firstly in legalperspective, this article refers to UK&#39;s similar mechanism, claiming that protectionneeds to be built in the copyright related laws. As for the protection method, basedon the principle of legal stability, analogizing AI-generated work to the existingwork under copyright law may be a feasibly way. After reviewing each type of theworks, the author considers work-made-for-hire theory has the highest similaritywith AI-generated work. Secondly in policy perspective, this article refers to EuropeanUnion and Japan&#39;s policy consideration to introduce the advanced mechanismfor Taiwan&#39;s reference. The initial suggestion is proposed that an inter- departmental sector shall be established for the long-term development of the AIgeneratedwork. In conclusion, the author emphasizes that legal protection shouldbe applied to this new type of work and attribute right to human, so that the incentivefor innovation will be created and eventually benefit to Taiwan&#39;s AI industry.Also, the policy on AI-generated work should be formulated, so that the Taiwan&#39;sAI development blueprint will be more complete.<br />\r\n&nbsp;","summary":"","liaisonper":null,"liaisontel":null,"liaisonfax":null,"liaisonemail":null,"docs":[],"images":[],"videos":[],"audios":[],"resources":[]},{"subject":"專利有效性判斷雙軌制下臺灣專利連結制度觀察及建議","dataClassName":null,"pubUnitName":"科技法律研究所","posterDate":null,"updateDate":null,"detailContent":"<strong><span style=\"font-size:115%;\"><span style=\"color:#990000;\">Observations and Suggestions on Taiwan&#39;s Patent Linkage System in Bifurcated Patent Litigation System</span></span></strong><br />\r\n<strong>作者：</strong>李秉燊<br />\r\n<strong>出版年月：</strong>201909<br />\r\n<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>專利連結；公私法二元與雙軌制；藥品專利登載；擬制侵權；暫停核發藥物許可證；銷售專屬期間；Patent Linkage；Bifurcated Patent Litigation System；Drug Patent Listing；Artificial Act of Infringement；Automatic Stay；Market Exclusivity<br />\r\n<br />\r\n<strong><span style=\"background-color:#f1c40f;\">中文摘要</span></strong><br />\r\n美國法院判決專利無效，即拘束其後所有訴訟當事人；是以，在專利連結制度下，當有學名藥廠取得專利無效判決，美國食品藥品監督管理局（USFDA）於另一學名藥廠申請上市時，不再啟動暫停核發許可證。臺灣專利有效性判斷則採雙軌制，雖然民事法院得自為判斷專利有效性，惟僅生個案拘束力；因此，專利連結在臺灣施行後，即使系爭專利曾經民事法院認定無效，只要未經舉發撤銷，臺灣衛生福利部食品藥物管理署（TFDA）在另一學名藥廠申請上市時仍於法定期間暫停核發許可證。由此可知，同樣的專利連結制度，適用臺灣專利法制後產生有別美國的法律效果，系爭專利將繼續啟動暫停核發許可證的法定效力，遞延第二、三家學名藥廠進入市場的時間，進而影響藥品價格與製藥產業發展。鑑於上述問題，本文研究美國修法歷程與韓國立法例，在臺灣公私法二元與雙軌制的結構下提出專利連結制度的規範配套建議，調和現行臺灣專利連結制度在專利有效性判斷雙軌制下可能形塑的市場壁壘。此外，臺灣有別美國，尚未允許學名藥廠主動提起確認系爭專利應撤銷或未侵權之訴，於訴訟啟動完全處於被動；甚至在專利連結下擬制侵權訴訟中對原開發藥廠訴訟理由有重大影響的專利資訊有疑義時，得否爭執亦未可知。本文建議臺灣未來在專利法增訂專利連結下擬制侵權態樣時，應確保配套規定學名藥廠得於原開發藥廠未於法定期間起訴時，提起確認專利未侵權之訴；並基於專利資訊為該擬制侵權的重要基礎，規定學名藥廠得於專利連結訴訟中提請法院審酌專利資訊適格與正確性，以平衡現行制度下學名藥廠的弱勢地位。<br />\r\n<br />\r\n<strong><span style=\"background-color:#f1c40f;\">英文摘要</span></strong><br />\r\nn the U.S., once a patent owner&#39;s patent(s) is declared as invalid, he cannotbring an infringement suit against other implementers any more. Therefore, when ageneric drug company successfully challenges patent(s) validity in a Hatch-Waxman litigation, the US FDA will not grant other 30-month stays of regulatoryapproval to brand-name drug company because the patent(s) corresponding to newdrugs is invalid. However, patent law in Taiwan follows the bifurcation system.Accordingly, although Taiwan civil courts are allowed to decide the validity of patentright at issue, its opinion binds only the parties in suits. For that reason, afterthe patent linkage system is implemented in Taiwan, the statutory 12-months stayswill be triggered automatically if the patent(s) corresponding to new drugs have notbeen revoked, even the civil courts had decided the patent(s) is invalid based on themerit of the case. Obviously, patent linkage system in Taiwan&#39;s bifurcated patentlitigation system will delay the latecomer generic drug companies who sell thesame drug entering the market. The generic pharmaceutical industry and the right to access medicine in Taiwan will subsequently be jeopardized. Furthermore, Taiwancivil courts are not allowed to invalidate a patent or decide whether patent(s)corresponding to new drugs is infringed by a counterclaim or declaratory judgement.On top of that, it is still unknown that whether the generic drug companycould question the patent information in the Hatch-Waxman litigation if it seemsinappropriate. As a result, this article digs into U.S. Statute law revision and suggestsTaiwan civil courts should shoulder the burden of verifying the informationafter requested by the generic drug company in the litigation with the objective ofstriking a balance between brand-name and generic drug company.<br />\r\n&nbsp;","summary":"","liaisonper":null,"liaisontel":null,"liaisonfax":null,"liaisonemail":null,"docs":[],"images":[],"videos":[],"audios":[],"resources":[]}]