[{"subject":"美國專利紛爭解決之關鍵性變革──論美國專利複審程序的結構功能分析與實施成效","dataClassName":null,"pubUnitName":"科技法律研究所","posterDate":null,"updateDate":null,"detailContent":"The Mechanism and Characteristics of the Revolutionary Patent Review System before the PTAB and an Empirical Review of Its Practice
\r\n作者：陳在方
\r\n出版年月：201712
\r\n關鍵詞：專利；複審程序；專利訴訟；美國發明法；核准後複審程序；多方複審程序；商業方法過渡期複審程序；Patent；Patent Litigation；AIA；Post-Grant Review；Inter Partes Review；Covered Business Method Patent Review
\r\n
\r\n中文摘要
\r\n美國發明法的設計，反映出美國專利法制對於專利權與公眾利益間平衡點之重新思索。美國發明法下之專利複審制度，提供具備高度效率的專利再審查平臺，平衡專利權人與潛在被控侵權人間之攻防武器，對於美國專利制度之運作影響極大。本文係針對複審程序設計架構與程序性質之特點深入研究。複審程序主要係以靜態之三層次架構以及動態的兩階段審理結構所組成。架構上，係由不同性質與類型之專利，設計出核准後複審（Post-Grant Review, PGR）、多方複審（Inter Partes Review, IPR）、商業方法過渡期複審（Covered Business Method Patent Review, CBMR）之三層次程序架構。在此三層次架構之中，各個程序之進行採取兩階段的審理結構，亦即每個層次均包括立案申請與本案審判等兩階段。複審制度結構功能之設計，大幅引進典型司法審判程序之程序元素，與行政程序之程序元素重組交錯適用後，達到特殊的制度功能，兼採審判程序與行政程序的優點，以達到平衡專利權利與公眾利益的目的。複審程序的結構元素的設計，係此一制度得以達到其制度目的之重要關鍵。本文並為檢視複審制度實施至今的運作情況是否反映其制度功能，利用Lex Machina專利訴訟資料庫的實證數據，針對複審程序至今的發展狀態加以分析，為專利審判及上訴委員會（Patent Trial and Appeal Board, PTAB）前4年5個月的審判活動提供具體的審視。
\r\n
\r\n英文摘要
\r\nThe Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) establishes a new patent re-view system before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The purpose of the system is to review issued patents with a view to ensure a proper balance between the interests of patent right holders and that of the general public. The new review system is composed of three types of mechanisms, and the procedure of each type of mechanism has two distinct stages. On the one hand, the new procedure provides a patent challenger broader participation rights, and has strong adjudicatory characteristics. In this regard, the new procedure is a judicial proceeding in which parties resolve concrete disputes between them. On the other hand, the review procedure maintains strong administrative procedure characteristics and is a specialized agency proceeding. Indeed, the mixture of the characteristics and its procedural design are the hallmark of the efficiency and success of the new system.
\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=1396866689563365376&type=s","pdffileurl":"","odffileurl":"","expFile":"美國專利紛爭解決之關鍵性變革──論美國專利複審程序的結構功能分析與實施成效"}],"images":[],"videos":[],"audios":[],"resources":[]},{"subject":"對「行賄外國公務員罪」之檢視與修正建議──以日本之立法經驗為借鏡","dataClassName":null,"pubUnitName":"科技法律研究所","posterDate":null,"updateDate":null,"detailContent":"The Review and Revised Proposal for “Anti-Bribery of Foreign Public Officials”—Lessons from the Legislative Experience of Japan
\r\n作者：張天一
\r\n出版年月：201712
\r\n關鍵詞：商業賄賂；貪污治罪條例；行賄外國公務員罪；不正競爭防止法；對外國公務員贈賄罪；Business Bribery；Anti-Corruption Act；Anti-Bribery of Foreign Public Officials；Unfair Competition Prevention Act (Japan)；Prohibition to Provide Illicit Gain；etc. to Foreign Public Officers
\r\n
\r\n中文摘要
\r\n貪污治罪條例第11條第三項為「行賄外國公務員罪」之規定，其目的在於防止我國人民或企業為在國際貿易上取得優勢地位或利益，而對外國公務員行賄，以杜絕商業賄賂行為。但該規定自2003年制定後，經歷15年的時間，卻幾無遭到追訴的案例，究竟是法律制定上發生問題，或是執行上有所困難，值得深入探討。而日本於1997年簽署經濟合作暨發展組織的「禁止在國際貿易中行賄外國公務員公約」後，為了履行相關義務，而於1998年在不正競爭防止法中增訂了「對外國公務員贈賄罪」，其後，為了配合經濟合作暨發展組織的檢查，對於該罪及相關規定又進行多次的修正。而日本在立法、修法及執行過程中所遭遇到的相關問題，以及所提出之因應對策，應有值得我國借鏡 之處。因此，本文透過對日本「對外國公務員贈賄罪」的介紹，進而檢視我國「行賄外國公務員罪」所存在之問題，並嘗試提出解決方案，期望在提升我國貿易競爭力與履行國際義務間，能尋得適當的平衡點。
\r\n
\r\n英文摘要
\r\nArt. 11.3 of the Anti-Corruption Act is called the “Anti-Bribery of Foreign Public Officials.” It aims to prevent our people or corporations from bribing foreign public officials in the hope of getting advantage or benefit in international trades and to eradicate business bribery. However, it has been 14 years since its enactment in 2003 and there have been almost no lawsuits about it. It’s worth our further discussion on whether there are problems about the rules themselves or whether there are difficulties in enforcing them. In 1997, Japan signed a pact of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to inhibit bribing foreign public officials in international trades. To fulfill related obligations, it added the article of “Prohibition to Provide Illicit Gain, etc. to Foreign Public Officers” to its Unfair Competition Prevention Act in 1998. Afterwards, Japan has made many modifications to the related rules of this crime in order to cooperate with the inspection of OECD. Thus, there should be something worth our consultation in Japan’s legislation, amendment, and the problems they encountered in the enforcement. Therefore, this thesis makes an introduction of Japan’s law of “Prohibition to Provide Illicit Gain, etc. to Foreign Public Officers” and examines the problems in our law of “Anti-Bribery of Foreign Public Officials” in the hope of coming up with the solutions so that we can strike a balance between enhancing our trade competitiveness and fulfilling the obligations as a part of the world.
\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=1397037528883662848&type=s","pdffileurl":"","odffileurl":"","expFile":"對「行賄外國公務員罪」之檢視與修正建議──以日本之立法經驗為借鏡"}],"images":[],"videos":[],"audios":[],"resources":[]},{"subject":"控制權溢價之意涵及其歸屬","dataClassName":null,"pubUnitName":"科技法律研究所","posterDate":null,"updateDate":null,"detailContent":"Components of Control Premium and Its Allocation
\r\n作者：黃朝琮
\r\n出版年月：201712
\r\n關鍵詞：控制權溢價；少數股權折價；流通性折價；控制股權出售；股份收買請求權；受託義務審查；公開收購；Control Premium；Minority Discount；Marketability Discount；Sale of Controlling Shares；Appraisal；Review of Fiduciary Duty；Tender Offer
\r\n
\r\n中文摘要
\r\n本文觀察美國法上所討論之控制權溢價的內涵，認為可以將之解析為綜效價值、徵用價值及純粹控制價值三者。除公開收購的場合，控制權溢價在美國法上原則歸屬於控制權人，但允許其將之與少數股東分享，並透過受託義務審查及股份收買請求權等機制，使少數股東有機會分享控制權溢價。換言之，控制權溢價之歸屬並非只有一個答案，其分配亦非全有全無。我國關於控制權溢價的概念係在股份收買請求權的脈絡中展開，其中定義雖屬完整，然未完整架構控制權溢價歸屬之完整體系，且有以全有全無方式，作單一配置的傾向，本文觀察相關學說實務見解，試圖提出控制權溢價歸屬的整體架構。
\r\n
\r\n英文摘要
\r\nThis article analyzes the components of control premium by observing the discussion under the U.S. law and argues that control premium consists of synergistic value, expropriation value and pure control value. Except for tender offer, the controller of a company is entitled to receive the control premium by default, but the controller could share the control premium with the minority shareholders under the U.S. law. Therefore, there is no single answer with respect to allocation of the control premium. Under Taiwan law, the concept of control premium is developed in the context of appraisal right. Although the control premium is soundly developed, the allocation of the control premium has not been adequately explored and Taiwan court seems to be inclined to give a one-size-fits-all answer in this regard. This article reviews the academic discussions and cases, and provides a global structure with respect to the allocation of the control premium.
\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=1397037426572005376&type=s","pdffileurl":"","odffileurl":"","expFile":"控制權溢價之意涵及其歸屬"}],"images":[],"videos":[],"audios":[],"resources":[]},{"subject":"著作權法追及權之研究","dataClassName":null,"pubUnitName":"科技法律研究所","posterDate":null,"updateDate":null,"detailContent":"The Study on Resale Royalty Right
\r\n作者：許炳華
\r\n出版年月：201712
\r\n關鍵詞：追及權；著作權；視覺藝術；人格權；第一次銷售原則；Droit de Suite；Resale Royalty Right；Visual Arts；Moral Right；the First Sale Doctrine
\r\n
\r\n中文摘要
\r\n追及權首度於1920年為法國所法制化，斯時起，法國之視覺藝術家有權由其作品再銷售之過程要求獲得增值分享權利金，追及權雖時常被描繪為財產權利，然精確言之，應界定其為人格權與著作人權利之混合，因為其同時源自於不可移轉之源權及參與未來經濟性利用著作之權利，在將近一世紀後，追及權已在全球81個國家實施，並為伯恩公約第14條明文化，而融合至歐盟之層級。功能健全之著作權法必須提供著作人豐沛之支持，畢竟著作人應該是著作權體系首要之受益者，促進所有人珍視文化、強化對於創作者本身之尊重、藉由藝術之過程及實現來擴展參與，殆屬國際著作權規範之任務，從理論面觀之，追及權確然成為爭議性之議題，然在國際現實下，未來追及權之國際條約將成為下一階段之挑戰。
\r\n
\r\n英文摘要
\r\nThe Droit de Suite, or an artist’s resale royalty right, was first enacted into law by France in 1920. Since then, French fine artists have had the right to be paid a royalty from the proceeds of any resale of their work. Often characterized as a pecuniary right, the Droit de Suite is more accurately defined as a hybrid of the moral right and the author’s right, because it is an offshoot of both of the inalienable right of paternity and the right to participate in the future economic exploitation of a work. Almost a century later, the resale royalty right is implemented in 81 countries and is now recognized in Berne Convention in Article 14 and harmonized at European Union level. A well-functioning copyright law must provide robust support for authors, who are, after all, the first beneficiaries of the copyright system. To further the appreciation of culture among all the people, to increase respect for the creative individual, to widen participation by all the processes and fulfillments of art, is the duty of international copyright system. An international treaty for artist’s resale royalty right would be a challenge of next stage.
\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=1397037242614026240&type=s","pdffileurl":"","odffileurl":"","expFile":"著作權法追及權之研究"}],"images":[],"videos":[],"audios":[],"resources":[]},{"subject":"美國專利懲罰性賠償解析──以2016年聯邦最高法院Halo Electronics Inc.v. Pulse Electronics Inc.為中心","dataClassName":null,"pubUnitName":"科技法律研究所","posterDate":null,"updateDate":null,"detailContent":"The Analysis on U.S. Punitive Damages of Patent Infringement: Focusing on Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc.
\r\n作者：呂柔慧
\r\n出版年月：201712
\r\n關鍵詞：懲罰性賠償；三倍損害賠償；故意侵權；專利侵權；美國專利法；Punitive Damage；Treble Damages；Willful Infringement；Patent Infringement；U.S. Patent Law
\r\n
\r\n中文摘要
\r\n懲罰性賠償，意指於填補權利人損害外，由法院再行提高侵權人之損害賠償數額。於大陸法系國家，由於傳統認為有損害斯有賠償，對於英美法系懲罰性賠償之概念尚無法完全接受，因此，導致我國專利法懲罰性賠償於2011年至2013年間反覆立法，實務在操作上也尚未臻成熟階段。反觀美國專利法制，懲罰性賠償之發展已將近有兩個世紀之久，雖於法條上不同於我國明定以侵權人「故意」為適用前提，實務上仍發展出以侵權人「蓄意」（willful）為要件，美國聯邦最高法院並於2016年做出Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc. 案，推翻適用將近10年的In re Seagate Technology, LLC案之兩階段測試法，重新提出「蓄意」之認定標準。本文即以上開判決為中心，詳述美國專利懲罰性賠償之發展歷程，以及本案可能帶來之影響，最後，以美國法為借鏡，提出我國專利懲罰性賠償之設立有其正當性，但不應以填補損害為主要目的，實務對於相關酌定標準之運作仍有待未來持續發展；另外，我國廠商對於美國此項最新發展亦不能不注意，以避免遭法院認定為「蓄意」，而同負懲罰性賠償之連帶責任。
\r\n
\r\n英文摘要
\r\nPunitive damage means that the court can increase the damages after fully compensating the infringement. The concept of punitive damage hasn’t been well accepted in civil law system because the traditional jurisprudence of damages in civil law is compensatory damages. And that leads to the repeated elimination and enactment of punitive damage in R.O.C. Patent Law within the last two years, the court also has difficulties in utilizing it. Punitive damage in the U.S. patent law has been developed for nearly two centuries. Unlike R.O.C. Patent Law, the U.S. patent law doesn’t expressly require “willfulness” as prerequisite, but it has been accepted through the practice of law. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court in Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc. has held that the test used since 2007 for awarding punitive damage for willful patent infringement is not consistent with the Patent Act, by clarifying the proper standard for determining willful infringement. This article aims to focus on Halo, introducing the development of punitive damages in the U.S. patent law and the impact of Halo. Finally, this article suggests that punitive damage should remain enacted in Taiwan and be awarded for a punitive purpose, but the standard for punitive damage still needs future relevant cases in order for a standard to be developed. Taiwan companies should also be aware of the development of Halo to avoid joint and several liabilities.
\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=1397037066616836096&type=s","pdffileurl":"","odffileurl":"","expFile":"美國專利懲罰性賠償解析──以2016年聯邦最高法院Halo Electronics Inc.v. Pulse Electronics Inc.為中心"}],"images":[],"videos":[],"audios":[],"resources":[]}]