Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.author汪偉柏en_US
dc.contributor.authorWang, Wei-Poen_US
dc.contributor.author劉尚志en_US
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Shang-Jyhen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-12T03:11:34Z-
dc.date.available2014-12-12T03:11:34Z-
dc.date.issued2009en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://140.113.39.130/cdrfb3/record/nctu/#GT009468505en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11536/82519-
dc.description.abstract美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院(CAFC)於2007年8月20日做成In re Seagate案之判決,將專利故意侵權的判斷標準從過去與判斷有無過失(Negligence)相似的注意義務(Duty of Care)標準,修改為與其他法律領域之故意侵權判斷標準相當之客觀輕忽(Objective Recklessness)標準,法院及論者均謂此將專利故意侵權的判斷門檻提高,今後欲證明專利故意侵權將更為困難。然而專利故意侵權與否為一事實問題,一般來說於審判程序中應由陪審團做出決定,則由不具法律專業知識之一般民眾所組成的陪審團是否能夠於其決定中反映此一法律門檻之提高,不免令人存疑。本文藉由對於Seagate案前後一定期間內聯邦地方法院之專利案件進行計量分析,以及對Seagate案後之聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決進行文本分析,歸納出陪審團對於專利故意侵權之決定,並未能反映此一法律標準的提高。此外,Seagate判決中亦重申今後被控侵權人於得知專利權之存在後將不再有取得律師法律意見(opinion of counsel)之積極義務,惟本文在實際上檢視Seagate案後之CAFC判決卻顯示,法院非但未減損律師法律意見之重要性,其關於專利故意侵權之法律見解反而均仍聚焦於律師法律意見對於證明客觀輕忽與否之效用上,可見在新的法律標準下,取得律師法律意見仍是證明無故意侵權之重要工具。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractThe In re Seagate decision made by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on August 20th, 2007 changes the legal standard for deciding patent willful infringement from the “duty of care” standard, which is more in line with “negligence”, to an “objective recklessness” standard, which conforms to willfulness standard in other areas of law. The Court and commentators believe that this raises the hurdle of proving patent willful infringement, and it becomes more difficult to prove the same. However, patent willful infringement is a fact issue, generally to be determined by jury trial. It is doubtful that whether the determination made by lay people jury without legal expertise would be able to reflect such a change in legal standard. This article conducts statistical analysis to district court patent cases before and after Seagate, and also analyzes the Federal Circuit decisions after Seagate. Conclusion has been drawn that the determination made by jury on patent willful infringement issue cannot reflect this raise of legal standard. Additionally, the Court reiterates in Seagate that alleged infringer no longer has the affirmative duty to obtain opinion of counsel once becoming aware of the existence of patent. However, the CAFC decisions after Seagate indicates that opinion of counsel remains focus of defending patent willful infringement, even under the new objective recklessness standard. Therefore, opinion of counsel still remains an important tool to prove no willful infringement under the new standard.en_US
dc.language.isozh_TWen_US
dc.subject專利zh_TW
dc.subject故意侵權zh_TW
dc.subjectwillful infringementen_US
dc.subjectIn re Seagateen_US
dc.title專利故意侵權實證研究 - 以美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院In Re Seagate案為中心zh_TW
dc.titleAn Empirical Study on Patent Willful Infringement - The Impact of CAFC’s In re Seagate Decisionen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.contributor.department管理學院科技法律學程zh_TW
Appears in Collections:Thesis


Files in This Item:

  1. 850501.pdf

If it is a zip file, please download the file and unzip it, then open index.html in a browser to view the full text content.