請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/68348完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 謝銘洋(Ming-Yan Shieh) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hsiao-Han Su | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 蘇筱涵 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T02:18:21Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2017-08-25 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2017-08-25 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2017-08-23 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文
（一）專書著作 王澤鑑（2006）。《侵權行為法第二冊》。台北：自刊。 （二） 期刊雜誌 江浣翠（2014）。〈美國醫師免責條款下的醫療方法專利與間接侵權〉，《萬國法律》，196期，頁 21-33。 沈宗倫（2017）。〈以跨境分工非法實施行為論專利侵權法制的困境與續造—以智慧財產法院一〇三年度民專訴字第一一二號判決為例〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，264期，頁210-228。 李素華、謝銘洋（2007）。〈生技醫療產業所面對新興專利課題—基因檢測、細胞治療與基因治療之專利保護與權利限制〉，《台灣科技法律與政策論叢》，4卷2期，頁 49-100。 陳正倫（2009年1月）。〈在專利侵害鑑定中間接侵權是否存在（下）〉，《連展人》，1月號，頁30-33。 楊智傑（2015）。〈美國與台灣專利侵權態樣與判決比較研究〉，《專利師》，22期，頁26-49。 趙晉枚、江國慶（2010）。〈專利間接侵權之探討〉，《專利師》，3期，頁49-64。 （三）學位論文 陳師敏（2013）。《專利間接侵權之法律分析與實證研究》，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，新竹。 （四）其他 葉雲卿（2012）。〈由方法專利看專利直接侵權構成要件—以數個侵權人聯合實施某被控專利請求項為討論中心〉。載於： http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Expert_Column/Expert-2.htm#1。 經濟部智慧財產局（2009）。《980526專利法修正草案條文對照表》。載於： https://www.tipo.gov.tw/public/Attachment/980526%E5%B0%88%E5%88%A9%E6%B3%95%E4%BF%AE%E6%AD%A3%E8%8D%89%E6%A1%88%E6%A2%9D%E6%96%87%E5%B0%8D%E7%85%A7%E8%A1%A8.doc。 經濟部智慧財產局（2011）。《1001129專利法修正總說明及條文對照表（三讀通過）》。載於：https://www.tipo.gov.tw/public/Attachment/1001129%E5%B0%88%E5%88%A9%E6%B3%95%E4%BF%AE%E6%AD%A3%E7%B8%BD%E8%AA%AA%E6%98%8E%E5%8F%8A%E6%A2%9D%E6%96%87%E5%B0%8D%E7%85%A7%E8%A1%A8(%E4%B8%89%E8%AE%80%E9%80%9A%E9%81%8E).doc。 二、英文 （一）專書著作 3 ROBINSON, WILLIAM C., THE LAW OF PATENTS FOR USEFUL INVENTIONS (1890). 48A C.J.S. JOINT VENTURES (2014). 5 CHISUM, DONALD S., ChISUM ON PATENTS (2017). AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, RESTAT 2D OF TORTS (2nd ed. 1979). AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, RESTAT 2D OF AGENCY (2nd ed. 2010). AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, RESTAT 3D OF AGENCY (3rd ed. 2006). （二）期刊雜誌 Abn, Alice Juvon, Finding Vicarious Liability in U.S. Patent Law: The Control or Direction Standard for Joint Infringement, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 149 (2009). Aiken, Ben, Eliminating the Single-Entity Rule in Joint Infringement Cases: Liability for the Last Step, 101 VA. L. REV. 193 (2015). Bello, Oladayo & Zeadally, Sherali, Intelligent Device-to-Device Communication in the Internet of Things, 10 IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL 1172 (2016). Bernstein, Gaia, The Rise of the End User in Patent Litigation, 55 B.C. L. REV. 1443 (2014). Greskowiak, Stacie L., Joint Infringement after BMC: The Demise of Process Patents, 41 LOY. U. CHI. L. J. 351 (2010). Grow, Nathaniel, Joint Patent Infringement Following Akamai, 51 AM. BUS. L.J. 71 (2014). Grow, Nathanial, Resolving the Divided Patent Infringement Dilemma, 50 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 1 (2016). Gupta, Damon, Virtually Uninfringeable: Valid Patents Lacking Protection Under the Single Entity Rule, 94 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 61 (2012). Lemley, Mark A., et al., Divided Infringement Claims, 33 AIPLA Q. J. 255 (2005). Love, Brian & Yoon, James, Expanding Patent Law's Customer Suit Exception, 93 B.U. L. REV. 1605 (2013). Luo, Jingyuan, Concluding the Akamai Chapter of Divided Infringement: Is the Liability Loophole Closed?, 31 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 467 (2016). Luo, Jingyuan, Shining the Limelight on Divided Infringement: Emerging Technologies and the Liability Loophole, 30 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 675 (2015). Robinson, W. Keith, A Case Study of Federal Circuit Policy Making, 66 SMU L. REV. 579 (2013). Robinson, W. Keith, No “Direction” Home: An Alternative Approach to Joint Infringement, 62 AM. U. L. REV. 59 (2012). Truong, Long, After BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.: Conspiratorial Infringement as a Means of Holding Joint Infringers Liable, 103 NW. U. L. REV, 1897 (2009). Veeraraghavan, Sriranga, Joint In ingement of Patent Claims: Advice for Patentees, 23 SANTA CLARA HIGH TECH. L.J. 211(2012). Wu, Dolly, Joint Infringement and Internet Software Patents: An Uncertain Future?, 91 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 439 (2009). （三）法院判決 Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc). Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 786 F.3d 899 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., No. 06-CV-11109 RWZ U.S. Dist. (D. Mass. 2016). Applied Interact, LLC v. Vt. Teddy Bear Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19070 (S.D.N.Y 2005). Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961). Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476 (1964). AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc., 633 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2010). BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., No. 3:03-CV-1927-M, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37746 (N.D. Tex. 2006). BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994). Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. King Pharms., 403 F. Supp. 2d 451 (D. Md. 2005). Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic Ave, 194 F. Supp. 2d 323 (D. Del. 2002). Cross Med. Prods. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Crowell v. Baker Oil Tools, Inc., 143 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1944). Dawson Chem. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176 (1980). Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972). DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp., 363 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2004). E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Monsanto Co., 903 F. Supp. 680 (D. Del. 1995). Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc., 126 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1041 (S.D. Ind. 2015). Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc., 845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Emtel, Inc. v. LipidLabs, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 2d 811 (S.D. Tex. 2008). Engelhard Indus. v. Research Instrumental Corp., 324 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1963). Faroudja Labs., Inc. v. Dwin Elecs., Inc., CIVIL NO. 97-20010 SW, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22987 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc., 720 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir.1983). Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321 (F.3d 2010). Gayler v. Wilder, 51 U.S. (10 How.) 477 (1850). Glenayre Elecs., Inc. v. Jackson, 443 F.3d 851 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Global Patent Holdings, LLC v. Panthers BRHC LLC, 586 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011). Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc. v. emsCharts, Inc., 614 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U.S. 222 (1880). Hewlett–Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464 (Fed.Cir.1990). Hill v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:02-CV-186, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3389 (E.D. Tex. 2006). Jackson v. Nagle, 47 F. 730 (C.C.D. Cal. 1891). Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993). kSolo, Inc. v. Catona, No. CV 07-5213-CAS (AGRx), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95107, at 11 (C.D. Cal. 2008). Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014). Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1661. Mankes v. Vivid Seats Ltd., 822 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Marley Mouldings Ltd. v. Mikron Indus., Inc., No. 02C 2855, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7211 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2003). McKesson Techs. Inc. v. Epic Sys. Corp., No. 2010-1291, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7531 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2011). Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 111 F. Supp. 3d 346, 356 (W.D.N.Y 2015). Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 843 F.3d 942 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003). Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U.S. 661 (1944). Mercoid Corp. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 320 U.S. 680 (1944). Metal Film Co. v. Metlon Corp., 316 F. Supp. 96 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005). Mobil Oil Corp. v. Fitrol Corp., 501 F.2d 282 (9th Cir. 1974). Mobil Oil Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 367 F. Supp. 207 (D. Conn. 1973). Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008). N. Am. Philips Corp. v. Am. Vending Sales, Inc., 35 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1994). On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., 442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Peerless Equipment Co. v. W.H. Miner, Inc., 93 F.2d 98 (7th Cir. 1937). Roberts Dairy Co. v. United States, 530 F.2d 1342 (Ct. Cl. 1976). Rowe Int'l Corp. v. Ecast, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 924 (N.D. Ill. 2008). Royer v. Coupe, 146 U.S. 524 (1892). Solva Waterproof Glue Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 251 F. 64 (7th Cir. 1918). Takeda Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. v. W.-Ward Pharm. Corp., 785 F.3d 625 (Fed. Cir. 2015). TIP Sys., LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc., 529 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Vanderbilt Univ. v. ICOS Corp., 601 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997). Warren v. Parkhurst, 45 Misc. 466, 92 N.Y.S. 725 (Sup. Ct. 1904). York & M. L. R. Co. v. Winans, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 30 (1854). （四）其他 Brief of Amicus Curiae AIPLA, Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (May 26, 2014), available at http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/12-786_resp_amcu_aipla.pdf. Brief of Amici Curiae Cargill, Inc. et al., Limelight Networks, Inc., Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (Mar. 3, 2014), available at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v3/12-786_pet_amcu_cargill-etal.authcheckdam.pdf. Brief of Amici Curiae Newegg and L.L. Bean, Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014) (Feb. 28, 2014), available at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v3/12-786_pet_amcu_newegg.authcheckdam.pdf. Chlebowski, Mary E. & Tridico, Anthony C., The Changing Law of Multiparty Patent Infringement in the U.S. and How It Differs from Europe: Part One, Bloomberg Finance L.P (2011), available at http://www.finnegan.com/zh-CHT/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=15f87336-8fe4-43be-8f80-769721e4b4c7. Corporate Practice of Medicine, Health Law (2017), available at https://www.healthlawyers.org/hlresources/Health%20Law%20Wiki/Corporate%20Practice%20of%20Medicine.aspx. Crouch, Dennis Crouch, Joint Infringement: When Multiple Actors Work in Concert, Patently-O (2011), available at https://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/04/joint-infringement-when-multiple-actors-work-in-concert.html. Executive Office of the President, Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation, (June 2013), available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/patent_report.pdf. Laboratory Developed Tests, U.S. Food & Drug Adminstration (2017), available at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/InVitroDiagnostics/LaboratoryDevelopedTests/default.htm. Leighton, F. Thomosn & Lewin, Daniel M., Global Hosting System § 6108703 (USPTO ed., Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2000), available at https://www.google.com/patents/US6108703. Mankes, Robert O., Active Reservation System § 6477503 (USPTO ed., Robert O. Mankes 2002), available at https://www.google.com/patents/US6477503. Post Limelight, Could Patent Act Be More User Friendly?, LAW360 (Aug. 21, 2015), available at https://www.law360.com/articles/692252 (commentary of Steven Wong). Sachs, Rachel, Akamai v. Limelight: Implications for Medical Method Patents (Redux) (2015), available at http://blogs.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2015/08/14/akamai-v-limelight-implications-for-medical-method-patents-redux/. Spinrad, Paul, The New Cool: Akamai Overcomes the Internet's Hot Spot Problem, WIRED (1999), available at https://www.wired.com/1999/08/akamai/. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/68348 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 隨著網路及互動式科技的發展，越來越多複數主體透過分離式侵權的方式來規避專利侵權責任。分離式侵權係發生在複數主體聯合執行方法專利的所有步驟，但卻無任一主體完成所有步驟的情形。過去美國法院在面臨分離式侵權係採用專利法第271條第(a)項處理，並搭配不同的輔助標準來判斷複數主體間的關聯性。本文係以Akamai案為中心，依序介紹Akamai案前的輔助標準、Akamai案的歷審判決及Akamai案後法院的後續發展，最後再提出對此侵權態樣的規範建議。本文認為，未來國會應藉由修法新增包含主觀要件的分離式侵權態樣，以兼顧專利權人與無辜第三方之利益。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | With the development of the Internet and interactive technology, more and more multiple parties circumvent patent infringement liability through divided infringement. Divided infringement occurs when multiple parties collectively perform all the steps of a patented method claim, but no single party acting alone has completed the entire patented invention. In the past, the U.S. courts have been applying 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) to deal with this issue, together with various auxiliary standards to determine the relationship between multiple parties. This article focuses on Akamai cases by introducing the auxiliary standards prior to Akamai, the litigation history of Akamai, and cases following Akamai. In the end, this Article proposes that Congress should enact a new statutory provision including subjective elements to govern cases of divided patent infringement, so as to strike an adequate balance between the interests of patentees and innocent third parties. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T02:18:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-106-R00A41021-1.pdf: 1588713 bytes, checksum: 1c8db5f7d96c30f2f47adb57b823adce (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝 ................................................................................................................................... i
中文摘要 .......................................................................................................................... ii 英文摘要 ......................................................................................................................... iii 第一章 緒論 .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 研究動機與目的 ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 研究方法與本文架構........................................................................................................ 3 第二章 美國方法專利分離式侵權規則之介紹 .......................................................... 4 2.1 美國複數主體侵權責任條款 ............................................................................................ 4 2.1.1 直接侵權 .................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 間接侵權 .................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 分離式侵權規則之演變.................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 代理原則（Agency Principle） ................................................................................ 7 2.2.1.1 代理原則之提出：Crowell v. Baker Oil Tools, Inc......................................................... 7 2.2.1.2 代理原則之適用............................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1.2.1 第三方實施一個步驟：Metal Film Co. v. Metlon Corp.......................................... 9 2.2.1.2.2 第三方實施數個步驟：Mobil Oil Corp. v. Fitrol Corp. ......................................... 9 2.2.1.3 代理原則之擴張.............................................................................................................10 2.2.1.3.1 客戶僅執行一個步驟：Mobil Oil Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co. .............................10 2.2.1.3.2 客戶執行大部分步驟：E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Monsanto Co.............11 2.2.1.4 小結................................................................................................................................. 11 2.2.2 某些聯繫原則（Some Connection） ...................................................................... 12 2.2.2.1 某些聯繫原則之提出：Faroudja Labs., Inc. v. Dwin Elecs., Inc. ................................12 2.2.2.2 某些聯繫原則之適用.....................................................................................................13 2.2.2.2.1 醫療案件：Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic Ave............................................................13 2.2.2.2.2 透過網路建立聯繫：Applied Interact, LLC v. Vt. Teddy Bear Co........................13 2.2.2.2.3 代理或契約關係非必要：Hill v. Amazon.com, Inc...............................................14 2.2.2.3 某些聯繫原則之限縮：Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. King Pharms......................15 2.2.2.4 小結................................................................................................................................. 16 2.2.3 指導或控制原則（Direction or Control） .............................................................. 16 2.2.3.1 指導或控制原則之提出與適用.....................................................................................17 2.2.3.1.1 BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P. ...............................................................17 2.2.3.1.1.1 背景事實.........................................................................................................17 2.2.3.1.1.2 地方法院判決................................................................................................. 18 2.2.3.1.1.3 聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決.................................................................................19 2.2.3.1.2 Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp. ........................................................................21 2.2.3.1.2.1 法律原則.........................................................................................................21 2.2.3.1.2.2 背景事實.........................................................................................................21 2.2.3.1.2.3 聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決.................................................................................22 2.2.3.2 地方法院對指導或控制原則之限縮適用.....................................................................22 2.2.3.2.1 僅有指示不足以構成指導或控制：Global Patent Holdings, LLC v. Panthers BRHC LLC ..............................................................................................................................22 2.2.3.2.2 僅憑契約關係不足以構成指導或控制：Emtel, Inc. v. LipidLabs, Inc. ...............23 2.2.3.2.3 符合指導或控制之案：Rowe Int'l Corp. v. Ecast, Inc. .........................................25 2.2.3.3小結..................................................................................................................................25 第三章 Akamai案歷審判決 ....................................................................................... 27 3.1 Akamai I聯邦巡迴上訴法院第一次合議庭判決 ........................................................... 27 3.1.1 背景事實 .................................................................................................................. 27 3.1.2 地方法院判決 .......................................................................................................... 28 3.1.3 聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決 .......................................................................................... 29 3.1.3.1 強調代位責任，指導或控制非關鍵因素.....................................................................29 3.1.3.2 存在代理關係或契約義務才成立分離式侵權.............................................................30 3.1.3.3 普通法下代理原則之範圍.............................................................................................31 3.1.3.4 套用本案事實.................................................................................................................31 3.1.3.4.1 有無代理關係為關鍵.............................................................................................32 3.1.3.4.2 Limelight之客戶無契約義務執行方法步驟..........................................................33 3.1.3.4.3 結論.........................................................................................................................34 3.2 McKesson Techs. Inc. v. Epic Sys. Corp. .......................................................................... 34 3.2.1 背景事實 .................................................................................................................. 35 3.2.2 聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決 .......................................................................................... 35 3.3 Akamai II 聯邦巡迴上訴法院第一次全院聯席審理判決 ............................................. 36 3.3.1 直接侵權行為情境下聯合侵害方法專利之法理 .................................................. 37 3.3.2 以誘引侵權處理複數主體實施方法專利 .............................................................. 38 3.3.2.1 誘引侵權與直接侵權之差異.........................................................................................39 3.3.2.2 BMC法院之錯誤............................................................................................................39 3.3.3 引用美國專利法第271條之立法史 ...................................................................... 41 3.3.4 與普通法之比擬 ...................................................................................................... 43 3.3.4.1 美國聯邦刑法典.............................................................................................................43 3.3.4.2 美國侵權行為法.............................................................................................................44 3.3.5 對不同意見之回應 .................................................................................................. 45 3.3.5.1 專利法其他條文規定之比較.........................................................................................46 3.3.5.2 對於判例法之見解.........................................................................................................47 3.3.5.2.1 判例法並無支持單一主體原則.............................................................................47 3.3.5.2.2 國會應無支持單一主體原則.................................................................................50 3.3.6 本案判決見解（含McKesson案） ........................................................................ 51 3.4 Akamai III 最高法院判決 ............................................................................................... 52 3.4.1 Akamai II破壞第271條第(b)項之運作原則 .......................................................... 52 3.4.2 第271條第(b)項與第(f)項之比較 .......................................................................... 53 3.4.3 Akamai II解讀法典錯誤 .......................................................................................... 54 3.4.3.1 本案無直接侵權發生.....................................................................................................54 3.4.3.2 不當將專利法類比於刑法.............................................................................................55 3.4.3.3 上訴法院錯誤限縮第271條第(a)項.............................................................................55 3.4.3.4 暗示上訴法院重審第271條第(a)項.............................................................................56 3.5 Akamai IV 聯邦巡迴上訴法院第二次合議庭判決 ........................................................ 57 3.5.1 專利法第271條第(a)項下之分離式侵權 .............................................................. 57 3.5.1.1 第271條之法定機制.....................................................................................................59 3.5.1.2 第271條下之分離式侵權案例法.................................................................................62 3.5.1.3 將共同侵權責任納入第271條第(a)項之錯誤.............................................................65 3.5.2 套用本案事實 .......................................................................................................... 69 3.6 Moore法官不同意見書 ................................................................................................... 71 3.6.1 本案發明特色 .......................................................................................................... 72 3.6.2 單一主體原則及指導或控制測試之創設 .............................................................. 74 3.6.3 第271條第(a)項之聯合侵權責任 .......................................................................... 77 3.6.4 普通法支持第271條第(a)項之聯合侵權責任 ...................................................... 82 3.6.5 將法律解釋適用到本案 .......................................................................................... 86 3.6.5.1 被告Limelight為主謀，須依第271條第(a)項負責...................................................86 3.6.5.2 被告Limelight為聯合侵權人.......................................................................................86 3.6.6 對多數意見之回應 .................................................................................................. 88 3.6.7 結論 .......................................................................................................................... 92 3.7 Akamai V聯邦巡迴上訴法院第二次全院聯席審理判決 .............................................. 93 3.7.1 分離式侵權 .............................................................................................................. 93 3.7.2 套用本案事實 .......................................................................................................... 94 3.7.2.1 調控內容傳遞網路之使用.............................................................................................96 3.7.2.2 建立表現之方式或時點................................................................................................. 96 3.7.3 結論 .......................................................................................................................... 97 3.8 Akamai 地方法院判決 .................................................................................................... 98 3.9 小結 ................................................................................................................................. 98 第四章 Akamai判決後續發展 ................................................................................. 102 4.1 Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc ................................................................ 102 4.1.1 背景事實 ................................................................................................................ 102 4.1.2 聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決 ........................................................................................ 103 4.1.2.1 地方法院判決概述.......................................................................................................103 4.1.2.2 Akamai V指導或控制原則之第一要件檢測...............................................................104 4.1.2.3 Akamai V指導或控制原則之第二要件檢測...............................................................106 4.1.2.4 誘引侵權判斷...............................................................................................................107 4.2 Mankes v. Vivid Seats Ltd. .............................................................................................. 109 4.2.1 背景事實 ................................................................................................................ 109 4.2.2 聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決 ........................................................................................ 110 4.3 Medgeaph, Inc., v. Medtronic, Inc. ................................................................................. 112 4.3.1 背景事實 ................................................................................................................ 112 4.3.2 聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決 ........................................................................................ 114 4.4 小結 ............................................................................................................................... 116 第五章 分析討論 ...................................................................................................... 118 5.1 美國專利法面臨分離式侵權之困境 ............................................................................ 118 5.1.1 單一主體原則？ .................................................................................................... 121 5.1.2 Akamai V遺留之問題 ............................................................................................ 123 5.1.2.1 醫療診斷領域...............................................................................................................123 5.1.2.1.1 直接侵權責任.......................................................................................................123 5.1.2.1.2 誘引侵權責任.......................................................................................................125 5.1.2.2 其他科技領域...............................................................................................................126 5.2 解決之道 ....................................................................................................................... 127 5.2.1 良好的專利撰寫技巧？ ........................................................................................ 127 5.2.2 修法解決 ................................................................................................................ 128 5.3 比較我國專利侵權規定................................................................................................ 133 5.3.1 我國專利之侵權態樣 ............................................................................................ 133 5.3.1.1 專利法第96條之直接侵權.........................................................................................133 5.3.1.2 民法第185條...............................................................................................................133 5.3.1.2.1 民法第185條第1項之共同侵權.......................................................................134 5.3.1.2.2 民法第185條第2項之造意侵權與幫助侵權...................................................135 5.3.2 相關判決 ................................................................................................................ 137 5.3.2.1 方法專利：智慧財產法院103年度民專訴字第112號判決...................................137 5.3.2.1.1 判決事實概要與裁判理由...................................................................................137 5.3.2.1.2 判決評析...............................................................................................................138 5.3.2.2 組合專利：智慧財產法院103年度民專訴字第66號判決.....................................139 5.3.2.2.1 判決事實概要與裁判理由...................................................................................139 5.3.2.2.2 判決評析...............................................................................................................140 5.3.3小結 ......................................................................................................................... 141 第六章 結論 .............................................................................................................. 144 參考文獻 ...................................................................................................................... 145 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 共同侵權 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 聯合侵權 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 分離式侵權 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 單一主體原則 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 指導或控制 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 誘引侵權 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 直接侵權 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | direct or control | en |
| dc.subject | induced infringement | en |
| dc.subject | direct infringement | en |
| dc.subject | single entity rule | en |
| dc.subject | joint infringement | en |
| dc.subject | divided infringement | en |
| dc.title | 美國方法專利分離式侵權之發展—以Akamai案為中心 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Development of Divided Method Patent Infringement in the U.S.—Akamai as a Focus | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 105-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 沈宗倫(Chung-Lun Shen),李素華(Su-Hua Lee) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 分離式侵權,聯合侵權,共同侵權,直接侵權,誘引侵權,指導或控制,單一主體原則, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | divided infringement,joint infringement,direct infringement,induced infringement,direct or control,single entity rule, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 153 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201704157 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2017-08-23 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 科際整合法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 科際整合法律學研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-106-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 1.55 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。