請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/95330完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 李素華 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Su-Hua Lee | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 顏平 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Ping Yen | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-09-05T16:12:10Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2024-09-06 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2024-09-05 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2024-08-12 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Acts
(In chronological order) 1. Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73. 2. Act of Apr. 10, 1790, ch. 7, 1 Stat. 109. 3. Act of Feb. 21, 1793, ch. 11, 1 Stat. 318. 4. Act of Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 517, 26 Stat. 826. 5. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Pub. L. No. 703, 68 Stat. 919. 6. Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97–164, 96 Stat. 25. 7. Leahy–Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). Administrative Materials (In chronological order) 1. U.S. Patent No. 6,469 (granted May 22, 1849). 2. U.S. Patent No. 121,992 (granted Dec. 19, 1871). 3. U.S. Patent No. 140,245 (granted Jun. 24, 1873). 4. U.S. Patent No. 324,535 (granted Aug. 18, 1885). 5. U.S. Patent No. 1,469,994 (granted Oct. 9, 1923). 6. Establishing the National Patent Planning Commission, 6 Fed. Reg. 6441 (Dec. 12, 1941). 7. U.S. Patent No. 3,615,654 (granted Oct. 26, 1971). 8. U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411 (granted Sep. 28, 1999). 9. Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response Pilot Program, 87 Fed. Reg. 776 (Jan. 6, 2022). 10. U.S. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF., MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (Feb. 2023). 11. EUR. PAT. OFF., IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS TO THE CONVENTION ON THE GRANT OF EUROPEAN PATENTS (Dec. 2023). 12. EUR. PAT. OFF., GUIDELINES FOR EXAMINATION (Mar. 2024). Articles 1. A. Sasha Hoyt, The Impact of Uncertainty Regarding Patent Eligible Subject Matter for Investment in US Medical Diagnostic Technologies, 79 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 397 (2022). 2. Adam Mossoff, Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550-1800, 52 HASTINGS L.J. 1255 (2001). 3. Adam Mossoff, Who Cares What Thomas Jefferson Thought About Patents? Reevaluating the Patent Privilege in Historical Context, 92 CORNELL L. REV. 953 (2007). 4. Alyssa Boggs, Era of Confusion: The State of Patent Eligibility Jurisprudence and the Need for Intervention, 55 ST. MARY’S L.J. 1149 (2024). 5. Amy L. Landers, Patentable Subject Matter as a Policy Driver, 53 HOUS. L. REV. 505 (2015). 6. Annal D. Vyas, Alice in Wonderland v. CLS Bank: The Supreme Court’s Fantastic Adventure into Section 101 Abstract Idea Jurisprudence, 9 AKRON INTELL. PROP. J. 1 (2015). 7. Arthur J. Gajarsa & Lawrence P. Cogswell, III, The Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court, 55 AM. U. L. REV. 821 (2006). 8. Arthur Kantrowitz, Proposal for an Institution for Scientific Judgment, 156 SCI. 763 (1967). 9. Bennett Boskey, Progress and Patents in Atomic Energy: The Military and the Civilian Uses, 34 TEX. L. REV., 867 (1955). 10. Bernard Chao, Finding the Point of Novelty in Software Patents, 28 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1217 (2013). 11. Chad Rafetto, Fostering Innovation Through a Legislative Overhaul of Patentable Subject Matter, 32 FED. CIR. B.J. 93 (2023). 12. Charles Duan, Examining Patent Eligibility, 97 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 47 (2023). 13. Chester S. Chuang, Offensive Venue: The Curious Use of Declaratory Judgment to Forum Shop in Patent Litigation, 80 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1065 (2012). 14. Chris J. Katopis, Patients v. Patents?: Policy Implications of Recent Patent Legislation, 71 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 329 (1997). 15. Christopher A. Cotropia, Determining Uniformity Within the Federal Circuit by Measuring Dissent and En Banc Review, 43 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 801 (2010). 16. Christopher Beauchamp, The First Patent Litigation Explosion, 125 YALE L.J. 848 (2016). 17. Christopher W. Hammons, Was James Madison Wrong? Rethinking the American Preference for Short, Framework-Oriented Constitutions, 93 AM. POLIT. SCI. REV. 837 (1999). 18. Colleen V. Chien et al., Parsing the Impact of Alice and the PEG [Patent Eligibility Guidance], 2020 PATENTLY-O L.J. 20 (2020). 19. Craig Allen Nard & Andrew P. Morriss, Constitutionalizing Patents: From Venice to Philadelphia, 2 REV. L. & ECON. 223 (2006). 20. Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Policy Levers in Patent Law, 89 VA. L. REV. 1575 (2003). 21. Daniel J. Meador, An Appellate Court Dilemma and a Solution Through Subject Matter Organization, 16 U. MICH. J.L. REFORM 471 (1983). 22. Daniel P. McCurdy, Patent Trolls Erode the Foundation of the U.S. Patent System, 1 SCI. PROG. 78 (2009). 23. David A. Jackson et al., Biochemical Method for Inserting New Genetic Information into DNA of Simian Virus 40: Circular SV40 DNA Molecules Containing Lambda Phage Genes and the Galactose Operon of Escherichia coli, 69 PROC. NAT’L. ACAD. SCI. 2904 (1972). 24. David Encaoua et al., Patent Systems for Encouraging Innovation: Lessons from Economic Analysis, 35 RES. POLICY 1423 (2006). 25. David O. Taylor, Amending Patent Eligibility, 50 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 2149 (2017). 26. David O. Taylor, Justice Breyer and Patent Eligibility, 21 U.I.C. REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 71 (2022). 27. David O. Taylor, Patent Eligibility and Investment, 41 CARDOZO L. REV. 2019 (2020). 28. Dennis Crouch & Robert P. Merges, Operating Efficiently Post-Bilski by Ordering Patent Doctrine Decision-Making, 25 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1673 (2010). 29. Diane P. Wood, Generalist Judges in a Specialized World, 50 S.M.U. L. REV. 1755 (1997). 30. Donald S. Chisum, The Patentability of Algorithms, 47 U. PITT. L. REV. 959 (1986). 31. Donald W. Banner, An Unanticipated, Nonobvious, Enabling Portion of the Constitution: The Patent Provision—The Best Mode, 69 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 631 (1987). 32. E. Wyndham Hulme, On the Consideration of the Patent Grant, Past and Present, 13 L.Q. REV. 313 (1897). 33. E. Wyndham Hulme, On the History of the Patent Law in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, 18 L.Q. REV. 280 (1902). 34. Edward C. Walterscheid, Early Evolution of the United States Patent Law: Antecedents (5 Part I), 78 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 615 (1996). 35. Edward C. Walterscheid, The Early Evolution of the United States Patent Law: Antecedents (Part 2), 76 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 849 (1994). 36. Edward C. Walterscheid, The Early Evolution of the United States Patent Law: Antecedents (Part 3), 77 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 771 (1995). 37. Edward C. Walterscheid, The Nature of The Intellectual Property Clause: A Study in Historical Perspective (Part 1), 83 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 763 (2001). 38. Edward C. Walterscheid, To Promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts: The Background and Origin of the Intellectual Property Clause of the United States Constitution, 2 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 1 (1994). 39. Edward D. Cavanagh, Whatever Happened to Quick Look?, 26 U. MIAMI BUS. L. REV. 39 (2017). 40. Efthimios Parasidis, A Uniform Framework for Patent Eligibility, 85 TUL. L. REV. 323 (2010). 41. Erik S. Maurer, An Economic Justification for a Broad Interpretation of Patentable Subject Matter, 95 NW. U. L. REV. 1057 (2001). 42. F. D. Prager, The Early Growth and Influence of Intellectual Property, 34 J. PAT. OFF. SOC’Y 106 (1952). 43. Frank D. Prager, A History of Intellectual Property From 1545 to 1787, 26 J. PAT. OFF. SOC’Y 711 (1944). 44. Fritz Machlup & Edith Penrose, The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century, 10 J. ECON. HIST. 1 (1950). 45. Gavin J. Knott & Jennifer A. Doudna, CRISPR-Cas Guides the Future of Genetic Engineering, 361 SCI. 866 (2018). 46. George Tsebelis & Dominic J. Nardi, A Long Constitution is a (Positively) Bad Constitution: Evidence from OECD Countries, 46 BR. J. POLIT. SCI. 457 (2016). 47. George Tsebelis, The Time Inconsistency of Long Constitutions: Evidence from the World, 56 EUR. J. POLIT. RES. 820 (2017). 48. Gilbert H. Montague, The Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Patent Law, 21 YALE L.J. 433 (1912). 49. Giles S. Rich, Principles of Patentability, 28 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 393 (1960). 50. Giulio Mandich, Venetian Patents (1450-1550), 30 J. PAT. OFF. SOC’Y 166 (1948). 51. Greg IP & Mark Whitehouse, How Milton Friedman Changed Economics, Policy and Markets, WALL ST. J. (Nov. 17, 2006). 52. Greg Reilly, Power Over the Patent Right, 95 TUL. L. REV. 211 (2021). 53. Hallie Wimberly, The Changing Landscape of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility and Its Impact on Biotechnological Innovation, 54 HOUS. L. REV. 995 (2017). 54. Herbert Kritzer, Where Are We Going? The Generalist vs. Specialist Challenge, 47 TULSA L. REV. 51 (2011). 55. J. D. Watson & F. H. C. Crick, Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid, 171 NATURE 737 (1953). 56. J. Jonas Anderson, Applying Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Restrictions, 17 VAND. J. ENT. & TECH. L. 267 (2015). 57. James A. Martin, The Proposed “Science Court,” 75 MICH. L. REV. 1058 (1977). 58. Jason D. Reinecke, Is the Supreme Court’s Patentable Subject Matter Test Overly Ambiguous? An Empirical Test, UTAH L. REV. 581 (2019). 59. Jasper L. Tran & J. Sean Benevento, Alice at Five, 2019 PATENTLY-O L.J. 25 (2019). 60. Jay P. Kesan & Runhua Wang, Eligible Subject Matter at the Patent Office: An Empirical Study of the Influence of Alice on Patent Examiners and Patent Applicants, 105 MINN. L. REV. 527 (2020). 61. Jeffrey A. Lefstin et al., Final Report of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology Section 101 Workshop: Addressing Patent Eligibility Challenges, 33 BERKELEY TECHNOL. L.J. 551 (2018). 62. Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Inventive Application: A History, 67 FLA. L. REV. 565 (2015). 63. Jeremy Phillips, The English Patent as a Reward for Invention: The Importation of an Idea, 3 J. LEG. HIST. 71 (1982). 64. John F. Duffy, Harmony and Diversity in Global Patent Law, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 685 (2002). 65. John F. Duffy, Rules and Standards on the Forefront of Patentability, 51 WM. & MARY L. REV. 609 (2009). 66. John N. Adams & Gwen Averley, The Patent Specification: The Role of Liardet v Johnson, 7 J. LEG. HIST. 156 (1986). 67. John R. Thomas, Formalism at the Federal Circuit, 52 AM. U. L. REV. 771 (2003). 68. John R. Vile, The Critical Role of Committees at the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, 48 AM. J. LEGAL HIST. 147 (2006). 69. Joshua S. Gans et al., When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction? (Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Rsch., Working Paper No. 7851, 2000). 70. Katie Crocker, Just for Show: Eliminating Judicial Exceptions to Section 101 Would Render Limits on Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Meaningless, 15 CYBARIS 334 (2024). 71. Kevin Madigan & Adam Mossoff, Turning Gold Into Lead: How Patent Eligibility Doctrine is Undermining U.S. Leadership in Innovation, 24 GEO. MASON L. REV. 939 (2017). 72. Kimberly A. Moore, Forum Shopping in Patent Cases: Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation?, 83 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 558 (2001). 73. Larry Owens, Patents, the “Frontiers” of American Invention, and the Monopoly Committee of 1939: Anatomy of a Discourse, 32 TECHNOL. CULT. 1076 (1991). 74. Learned Hand, Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony, 15 HARV. L. REV. 40 (1901). 75. Lee Petherbridge, Patent Law Uniformity?, 22 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 421 (2009). 76. Li Zhang, Alice Gets a Haircut: Berkheimer and Aatrix Restore Factual Inquiry to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Under § 101, 34 BERKELEY TECHNOL. LAW J. 1081 (2019). 77. Lior Zemer, The Dialectic Effect of Intellectual Property Constitutionalism, 52 GEO. WASH. INT’L L. REV. 163 (2020). 78. Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Patentable Subject Matter and Nonpatent Innovation Incentives, 5 U.C. IRVINE L. REV. 1115 (2015). 79. Mark A. Lemley & A. Douglas Melamed, Missing the Forest for the Trolls, 113 COLUM. L. REV. 2117 (2013). 80. Mark A. Lemley & Samantha Zyontz, Does Alice Target Patent Trolls?, 18 J. EMPIR. LEG. STUD. 47 (2021). 81. Mark A. Lemley, Where to File Your Patent Case, 38 AIPLA Q.J. 401 (2010). 82. Matthieu Dhenne, Technical Character in European Patent Law (SSRN Electronic Journal, 2020), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3639200. 83. Michael Crichton, Patenting Life, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 13, 2007). 84. Michael Keyes, A Re-Examination of the Problem of Nonobviousness and Patent Validity, 4 GONZ. L. REV. 65 (1968). 85. Michael Risch, Nothing Is Patentable, 67 FLA. L. REV. F. 45 (2015). 86. Michael Risch, Patent Troll Myths, 42 SETON HALL L. REV. 457 (2012). 87. Mizuki Hashiguchi, The Global Artificial Intelligence Revolution Challenges Patent Eligibility Laws, 13 J. BUS. & TECH. L. 1 (2017). 88. Neil B. Siegel, Patent Monopoly and Sherman Act Monopolization, 49 J. PATT. OFF. SOC’Y 67 (1967). 89. Neil Davey et al., Ananda Mohan ‘Al’ Chakrabarty 1938–2020, 39 NAT. BIOTECHNOL. 18 (2021). 90. Nikola L. Datzov, The Role of Patent (In)Eligibility in Promoting Artificial Intelligence Innovation, 92 U.M.K.C. L. REV. 1 (2023). 91. Ognjen Zivojnovic, Patentable Subject Matter after Alice—Distinguishing Narrow Software Patents from Overly Broad Business Method Patents, 30 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 807 (2015). 92. P. J. Federico, Galileo’s Patent, 8 J. PAT. OFF. SOC’Y 576 (1925). 93. P. J. Federico, Operation for the Patent Act of 1790, 18 J. PAT. OFF. SOC’Y 237 (1936). 94. Paul R. Gugliuzza, The Procedure of Patent Eligibility, 97 TEX. L. REV. 571 (2019). 95. Peter Lee, Patent Law and the Two Cultures, 120 YALE L.J. 2 (2010). 96. Peter Lee, The Supreme Assimilation of Patent Law, 114 MICH. L. REV. 1413 (2016). 97. Peter S. Menell, Forty Years of Wondering in the Wilderness and No Closer to the Promised Land: Bilski’s Superficial Textualism and the Missed Opportunity to Return Patent Law to its Technology Mooring, 63 STAN. L. REV. 1289 (2011). 98. R. Polk Wagner & Lee Petherbridge, Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding? An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Performance, 152 U. PA. L. REV. 1105 (2004). 99. Ramon A. Klitzke, Historical Background of the English Patent Law, 41 J. PAT. OFF. SOC’Y 615 (1959). 100. Rebecca Lindhorst, Two-Stepping Through Alice’s Wasteland of Patent-Eligible Subject Matter: Why the Supreme Court Should Replace the Mayo/Alice Test, 69 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 731 (2019). 101. Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Patenting the Human Genome, 39 EMORY L.J. 721 (1990). 102. Rendigs Fels, The Long-Wave Depression, 1873–97, 31 REV. ECON. STAT. 69 (1949). 103. Richard Linn, Changing Times: Changing Demands, 15 S.M.U. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 1 (2011). 104. Richard M. Re, “Equal Right to the Poor,” 84 U. CHI. L. REV. 1149 (2017). 105. Robert P. Merges, As Many as Six Impossible Patent Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform, 14 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 577 (1999). 106. Robert U. Ayres, Technological Transformations and Long Waves. Part I, 37 TECHNOL. FORECAST. SOC. CHANGE 1 (1990). 107. Roberta Dessi & Salvatore Piccolo, Merchant Guilds, Taxation and Social Capital, 83 EUR. ECON. REV. 90 (2016). 108. Roberto Mazzoleni & Richard R. Nelson, The Benefits and Costs of Strong Patent Protection: A Contribution to the Current Debate, 27 RES. POLICY 273 (1998). 109. Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Specialized Adjudication, B.Y.U. L. REV. 377 (1990). 110. Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, The Federal Circuit: A Case Study in Specialized Courts, 64 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1 (1989). 111. Ronald J. Gilson et al., Contract and Innovation: The Limited Role of Generalist Courts in the Evolution of Novel Contractual Forms, 88 N.Y.U. L. REV. 170 (2013). 112. Ryan H. Flax, NAFTA & the Parent Systems of its Members: Is There Potential for a Unification of the North American Patent Systems?, 5 NAFTA: LAW & BUS. REV. AM. 461 (1999). 113. Sannu K. Shrestha, Trolls or Market-Makers? An Empirical Analysis of Nonpracticing Entities, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 114 (2010). 114. Scott E. Atkinson et al., The Economics of a Centralized Judiciary: Uniformity, Forum Shopping, and the Federal Circuit, 52 J.L. & ECON. 411 (2009). 115. Simone A. Rose, The Supreme Court and Patents: Moving Toward a Postmodern Vision of “Progress”?, 23 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 1197 (2012). 116. Sir William Jarratt, U.S. National Patenting Planning Commission, 153 NATURE 12 (1944). 117. Steven Horwitz & Michael J. McPhillips, The Reality of the Wartime Economy: More Historical Evidence on Whether World War II Ended the Great Depression, 17 INDEP. REV. 325 (2013). 118. Steven Wilf, How Patents Became Politics, 41 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 243 (2023). 119. Stuart J.H. Graham & Ted Sichelman, Why Do Start-Ups Patent?, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1063 (2008). 120. Suzanne Alexander, Penn’s Sylvania: “A Holy Experiment,” 1 FAIRMOUNT FOLIO J. HIST. 1 (1996). 121. Thomas M. Meshbesher, The Role of History in Comparative Patent Law, 78 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 594 (1996). 122. Timothy R. Holbrook & Mark D. Janis, Patent-Eligible Processes: An Audience Perspective, 17 VAND. J. ENT. & TECH. L. 349 (2015). 123. Tun-Jen Chiang, A Cost-Benefit Approach to Patent Obviousness, 82 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 39 (2008). 124. Tun-Jen Chiang, Competing Visions of Patentable Subject Matter, 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1858 (2013). 125. Tun-Jen Chiang, Formalism, Realism, and Patent Scope, 1 IP THEORY 88 (2010). 126. William E. Kovacic et al., Patents and Price Fixing by Serial Colluders, 10 N.Y.U. J. INTELL. PROP. & ENT. L. 152 (2021). 127. William E. Kovacic, Reagan’s Judicial Appointees and Antitrust in the 1990s, 60 FORDHAM L. REV. 49 (1991). 128. William H. Rehnquist, The Changing Role of the Supreme Court, 14 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 1 (1986). Books 1. ARISTOTLE, POLITICS (Benjamin Jowett trans., Batoche Books, Kitchener 1999). 2. B. ZORINA KHAN, THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF INVENTION: PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS IN AMERICAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 1790–1920 (Cambridge University Press 2005). 3. BETWEEN VENICE AND ISTANBUL: COLONIAL LANDSCAPES IN EARLY MODERN GREECE (Siriol Davies & Jack L. Davis eds., American School of Classical Studies at Athens 2007). 4. BRIAN GEE, FRANCIS WATKINS AND THE DOLLOND TELESCOPE PATENT CONTROVERSY (Anita McConnell ed., Routledge 2016). 5. COLLECTED WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN (Roy Basler ed., Rutgers University Press 1953). 6. DAVID FULTON, THE LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO PATENTS, TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS (Jordan & Sons 1902). 7. DONALD S. CHISUM, CHISUM ON PATENTS (Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. 2024) (1978). 8. ERIC SCHIFF, INDUSTRIALIZATION WITHOUT NATIONAL PATENTS: THE NETHERLANDS, 1869-1912; SWITZERLAND, 1850-1907 (Princeton University Press 2015). 9. H. I. DUTTON, THE PATENT SYSTEM AND INVENTIVE ACTIVITY DURING THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, 1750-1852 (Manchester University Press 1984). 10. JORGE L. CONTRERAS, THE GENOME DEFENSE: INSIDE THE EPIC LEGAL BATTLE TO DETERMINE WHO OWNS YOUR DNA (Algonquin Books 2021). 11. LAW AND THE SOCIAL ROLE OF SCIENCE (Harry W. Jones ed., Paul & Co Pub Consortium 1967). 12. MANUEL CASTELLS, THE RISE OF THE NETWORK SOCIETY (2d ed., Blackwell Publishing 2010). 13. MARK TWAIN, A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR’S COURT (Harper & Brothers 1889). 14. MATTHEW FISHER, FUNDAMENTALS OF PATENT LAW: INTERPRETATION AND SCOPE OF PROTECTION (Hart Publishing 2007). 15. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR., THE COMMON LAW (Tim Griffin intro., Routledge 2019) (1881). 16. PAUL D. CARRINGTON ET AL., JUSTICE ON APPEAL (1976). 17. PETER S. MENELL ET AL., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE NEW TECHNOLOGICAL AGE: 2023 (Clause 8 Publishing 2023). 18. PHILIP S. KLEIN & ARI HOOGENBOOM, A HISTORY OF PENNSYLVANIA (2d ed., Penn State Press 1980). 19. RICHARD A. POSNER, THE FEDERAL COURTS: CRISIS AND REFORM (1st ed. 1985). 20. RICHARD BEEMAN, PLAIN, HONEST MEN: THE MAKING OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION (Random House 2009). 21. ROBERT PATRICK MERGES & JOHN FITZGERALD DUFFY, PATENT LAW AND POLICY: CASES AND MATERIALS (8th ed., Carolina Academic Press 2021). 22. SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND; IN FOUR BOOKS (Thomas M. Cooley ed., Chicago: Callaghan and Cockcroft 1871) (1765). 23. THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (Andrew A. Lipscomb & Albert Ellery Bergh eds., 1903). 24. THOMAS PAINE, COMMON SENSE (Richard Beeman intro., Penguin Books 2012) (1776). 25. WILLIAM HENRY CHAFE, THE UNFINISHED JOURNEY: AMERICA SINCE WORLD WAR II (Oxford University Press 2003). Cases 1. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). 2. Am. Axle & Mfg. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 142 S. Ct. 2902 (2022) (denying writ of certiorari). 3. Am. Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brodgex Co., 283 U.S. 1 (1931). 4. Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 5. Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 6. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 7. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). 8. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013). 9. Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, 140 S. Ct. 855 (2020) (denying writ of certiorari). 10. Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, 915 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 11. Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, 927 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (denying panel rehearing and rehearing en banc). 12. BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 13. Bement v. Nat’l Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70 (1902). 14. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 15. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). 16. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). 17. Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Communs., Inc., 59 F. Supp. 3d 974 (C.D. Cal. 2014). 18. CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020). 19. CareDx Inc. v. Natera, Inc., 144 S. Ct. 248 (2023) (denying writ of certiorari). 20. Caredx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., 40 F.4th 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2022). 21. Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (1991). 22. Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988). 23. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). 24. Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 25. CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty, 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 26. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 27. Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252 (1854). 28. CosmoKey Sols. GMBH & Co. KG v. Duo Sec. LLC, 15 F.4th 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 29. Cuno Eng’g Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84 (1941). 30. Cybergenetics Corp. v. Inst. of Envtl. Sci. & Research, 490 F. Supp. 3d 1237 (N.D. Ohio 2020). 31. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 32. Densmore v. Scofield, 102 U.S. 375 (1880). 33. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980). 34. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). 35. Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 36. Dolbear v. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 126 U.S. 1 (1888). 37. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 38. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 39. Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948). 40. Genetic Veterinary Scis., Inc. v. Laboklin GmbH & Co. KG, 933 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 41. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972). 42. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). 43. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950). 44. Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., 535 U.S. 826 (2002). 45. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 248 (1851). 46. Hotel Sec. Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co., 160 F. 467 (2d Cir. 1908). 47. Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 967 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2020). 48. In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 49. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 50. In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 51. In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237 (C.C.P.A. 1978). 52. In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141 (C.C.P.A. 1978). 53. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 54. In re Roslin Inst. (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 55. In re Rudy, 956 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2020). 56. In re Zunshine, 816 F. App’x 477 (Fed. Cir. 2020). 57. Ino Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc., 782 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 58. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 59. Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 60. J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001). 61. Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co., 335 U.S. 560 (1949). 62. Killian v. Vidal, 144 S. Ct. 100 (2023) (denying writ of certiorari). 63. Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 64. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., 548 U.S. 124 (2006). 65. Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. 156 (1853). 66. Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86 (1939). 67. Markman v. Westview Instruments, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). 68. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 69. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). 70. McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419 (1891). 71. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 72. N. Sec. Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904). 73. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893). 74. O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1854). 75. Parke-Davis & Co. v. H. K. Mulford Co., 189 F. 95 (S.D.N.Y. 1911). 76. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978). 77. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc. v. J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc., 200 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 78. Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., 581 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 79. Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., 628 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 80. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 81. Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U.S. 347 (1875). 82. Roche Molecular Sys. v. Cepheid, 905 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 83. Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. 498 (1874). 84. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. 53 (2016). 85. State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Grp., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 86. Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707 (1881). 87. Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024). 88. Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp., 774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 89. Vanda Pharms., Inc. v. West-Ward Pharms. Int’l, Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Legislative Materials 1. H. R. Rep. No. 1923 on H. R. 7794, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952). 2. S. 2140, 118th Cong. (2023). 3. S. 4734, 117th Cong. (2022). 4. STAFF OF S. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 85TH CONG., EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH A STATUTORY STANDARD OF INVENTION, STUDY NO. 7 (Comm. Print 1958). Letters 1. Letter from Katherine K. Vidal, Dir., U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., to Thom Tillis et al., Sens., U.S. Senate (Jun. 24, 2022). 2. Letter from Thom Tillis & Tom Cotton, Sens., U.S. Senate, to Drew Hirshfeld, Comm’r for Pats, U.S. Pat. and Trademark Off. (Mar. 22, 2021). 3. Letter from Thom Tillis et al., Sens., U.S. Senate, to Drew Hirshfeld, Comm’r for Pats., U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off. (Mar. 5, 2021). Nonprint Resources 1. A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States, LADAS & PARRY EDUCATION CENTER (May 7, 2014). 2. Dan Levine, Rocker Judge Juggles Tech Policy, Supreme Court and the Stones, REUTERS (Dec. 11, 2013). 3. Darin Gibby, The Abstract Swing: Major League Problems in Patent Law, JDSUPRA (May 17, 2017). 4. Joe Mullin, Congress Must Stop Pushing Bills That Will Benefit Patent Trolls, EFF (Mar. 12, 2024). 5. Lora Strum, AMP v. Myriad: The Fight to Take Back Our Genes, ACLU (Jun. 13, 2023). 6. Michael Borella & Ashley Hatzenbihler, The Three Properties of Patent-Eligibility: An Empirical Study, PATENT DOCS BLOG (Jul. 30, 2020). 7. Press Release, Sens. Tillis and Coons and Reps. Collins, Johnson, and Stivers Release Draft Bill Text to Reform Section 101 of the Patent Act (May 22, 2019). 8. Stephen Hawking, Questioning the Universe, TED TALKS (Feb. 2008). 9. Thom Tillis et al., Tillis, Michel, and Kappos File Amici Curiae in American Axle at Supreme Court, IPWATCHDOG.COM (Mar. 1, 2021). 10. U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcomm. on Intell. Prop., The State of Patent Eligibility in America: Part I (Jun. 4, 2019). Reports 1. GILES S. RICH, A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS (1980). 2. MATTHEW B. MCFARLANE ET AL., STOPPED AT THE THRESHOLD: THE PRACTICAL IMPACT OF THE SUPREME COURT’S MAYO AND MYRIAD DECISIONS ON BIOTECHNOLOGY PATENT PRACTICES (2014). | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/95330 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 專利適格性與新穎性、實用性（產業利用性）、非顯而易見性（進步性）和揭露等要件共同決定何種發明有資格獲得專利保護。新興科技，特別是分子生物學和電腦軟體領域的發明，挑戰了傳統的專利適格定義。這些發明的複雜程度使專利適格原則必須達到微妙的平衡：過於寬泛的標準可能導致大量劣質專利，對社會的效益微乎其微；而過於嚴苛的標準可能排除有價值的發明，減少社會大眾從事創新或改良的誘因。
美國最高法院自2010年以來的四個判決建立了Alice/Mayo框架，極大程度限縮了專利適格範圍。該框架引入「抽象概念」（abstract idea）和「發明概念」（inventive concept）作為判斷標準，與早期Chakrabarty一案所支持寬泛的專利適格範圍形成對比。此外，Alice/Mayo框架確立的兩階段測試方法提高了專利的不確定性和法院判決的不一致性，因為其用語定義模糊，且內涵與非顯而易見性等其他可專利要件有所重疊。 專利適格原則的最新發展突顯了最高法院在形塑美國專利法中扮演的關鍵角色。法院的介入旨在消除專利例外主義，使專利法與一般法律原則保持一致。雖然Alice/Mayo框架可以處理劣質專利和相關的濫訴問題，但它也面臨可能阻礙技術創新的批評。不過對於修改該框架的呼籲，最高法院無意採取行動。這些持續的爭論反映了專利法長期存在的政策挑戰，它們與歷史上的困境相似，但日新月異的科技和相互對立的產業利益使情況更加複雜。解決這些挑戰需要基於完整的實證數據達成廣泛共識，以調和各方經濟利益，同時考慮不同道德價值觀和願景的衝突。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Patent eligibility determines which inventions qualify for patent protection, alongside criteria such as novelty, utility, nonobviousness, and disclosure. Emerging technologies, particularly in the fields of molecular biology and computer software, have challenged traditional definitions of patent eligibility. The complexity of these inventions necessitates a delicate balance: overly broad criteria may result in numerous low-quality patents with minimal societal benefit, while overly narrow criteria could exclude valuable innovations and reduce incentives for future advancements.
The Alice/Mayo framework, established by a quartet of post-2010 Supreme Court decisions, has significantly restricted the scope of patentable subject matter. This framework, focusing on “abstract ideas” and “inventive concepts,” contrasts with the broader interpretation supported by the earlier Chakrabarty decision, which embraced a more inclusive view of patentable inventions. Additionally, the Alice/Mayo two-step test has introduced unpredictability and inconsistent judicial opinions due to vague definitions and overlap with other patentability requirements, such as nonobviousness. Recent developments in patent eligibility doctrine underscore the Supreme Court’s central role in shaping U.S. patent law. The Court’s interventions aim to eliminate patent exceptionalism and align patent law with general legal principles. While the Alice/Mayo framework addresses concerns about low-quality patents and aggressive enforcement, it has faced criticism for potentially hindering technological innovation. Despite calls for refinement, the Court has shown limited interest in modifying the framework. These ongoing debates reflect persistent policy challenges in patent law, echoing historical struggles intensified by rapid technological advancements and competing industry interests. Resolving these challenges requires a broad consensus based on comprehensive empirical data to reconcile economic interests among stakeholders while considering clashes of moral values and differing visions for the future. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-09-05T16:12:10Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2024-09-05T16:12:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭---i
摘要---ii Abstract---iii Introduction---1 I. The Basis of U.S. Patent System---4 I.A. Theoretical Underpinnings---4 I.A.1. Ancient Greek Thoughts---4 I.A.2. Classical Justifications of Patent Systems---6 I.A.2.a. Natural Rights Theory---7 I.A.2.b. Societal Benefits Theory---8 I.A.2.b.i. Reward Theory---8 I.A.2.b.ii. Incentive Theory---11 I.A.2.b.iii. Exchange Theory---12 I.A.3. The Philosophy Behind U.S. Patent System---13 I.B. Historical Overview---17 I.B.1. European Background---17 I.B.1.a. Venetian Patent Act of 1474---18 I.B.1.b. Statute of Monopolies of 1624---21 I.B.2. From North American Colonies to the Confederation---24 I.B.3. United States Under the Constitution---27 II. The Evolving Doctrine---30 II.A. Constitutional and Statutory Origins of Patent Eligibility---30 II.B. Early Cases---34 II.B.1. Initial Exploration of Judicial Exceptions---34 II.B.1.a. Le Roy v. Tatham (1853)---35 II.B.1.b. O’Reilly v. Morse (1854)---36 II.B.1.c. Tilghman v. Proctor (1881)---37 II.B.1.d. The Telephone Cases---37 II.B.2. Making Sense of Section 101---39 II.B.2.a. American Fruit Growers v. Brogdex Co. (1931)---39 II.B.2.b. Mackay Co. v. Radio Corp. (1939)---40 II.B.2.c. Funk Brothers v. Kalo Co. (1948)---41 II.B.3. The 1952 Patent Act Framework---42 II.B.3.a. Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)---43 II.B.3.b. Parker v. Flook (1978)---44 II.B.3.c. Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)---45 II.B.3.d. Diamond v. Diehr (1981)---47 II.C. Doctrines Set by the Federal Circuit---48 II.C.1. Creation of a Specialized Court---48 II.C.2. The Rise and Fall of Broad Patent Eligibility---51 II.D. The Post-2010 Quartet of Supreme Court Decisions---54 II.D.1. Bilski v. Kappos (2010)---54 II.D.2. Mayo v. Prometheus (2012)---56 II.D.3. AMP v. Myriad (2013)---57 II.D.4. Alice v. CLS Bank (2014)---58 III. Impacts and Reactions to the New Framework---60 III.A. Debates Surrounding the New Doctrine---60 III.B. Patent Office and Court Proceedings---65 III.B.1. Section 101 Rejections and Invalidations---65 III.B.2. The “Quick-Look” Procedure---68 III.B.3. Implementation by the Federal Circuit---71 III.B.3.a. Biotechnology Inventions---72 III.B.3.a.i. Diagnostic Methods---72 III.B.3.a.ii. Therapeutic Methods---77 III.B.3.a.iii. Laboratory Techniques---78 III.B.3.b. Computer-Related Inventions---79 III.B.3.b.i. Not Directed to an Abstract Idea---80 III.B.3.b.ii. Possessing an Inventive Concept---83 III.C. Position of the Patent Office---85 III.D. Adjusting to the New Rules---93 III.E. Legislative Proposals---96 IV. Reflections---100 IV.A. “The Tracks of an Overthrown Chariot”---100 IV.A.1. Stare Decisis and Case Law Tradition---100 IV.A.2. “Abstract Idea” and “Inventive Concept”---103 IV.A.3. Legislative History of the 1952 Patent Act---108 IV.B. E Pluribus Unum (“One From Many”)---112 IV.B.1. Competing Interests and Visions of Patent Eligibility---112 IV.B.2. Patent Law as Federal Law---115 IV.B.3. Patent System as Economic Policy---119 Conclusion---123 Bibliography---125 Acts---125 Administrative Materials---125 Articles---126 Books---137 Cases---139 Legislative Materials---143 Letters---144 Nonprint Resources---144 Reports---146 | - |
| dc.language.iso | en | - |
| dc.subject | 專利適格性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Alice/Mayo框架 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 抽象概念 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 發明概念 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 專利例外主義 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | patent exceptionalism | en |
| dc.subject | Alice/Mayo framework | en |
| dc.subject | abstract idea | en |
| dc.subject | inventive concept | en |
| dc.subject | patent eligibility | en |
| dc.title | 反思美國專利適格原則 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Reflections on U.S. Patent Eligibility Doctrine | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 112-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 沈宗倫;許曉芬 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chung-Lun Shen;Hsiao-Fen Hsu | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 專利適格性,Alice/Mayo框架,抽象概念,發明概念,專利例外主義, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | patent eligibility,Alice/Mayo framework,abstract idea,inventive concept,patent exceptionalism, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 146 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202403982 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2024-08-13 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 科際整合法律學研究所 | - |
| 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-112-2.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 2.07 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。