參考文獻
中文書籍
李文賢，專利法要論，翰蘆圖書出版有限公司，初版 (2005)
林洲富，專利法－案例式，五南圖書出版股份有限公司，三版 (2011)
洪瑞章、陳森豐，發明、新型侵害鑑定報告及案例分析，國立臺灣大學科技整合法律學研究所，三版 (2010)
洪瑞章，專利侵害鑑定理論，國立臺灣大學科技整合法律學研究所，二版 (2007)
黃文儀，專利法逐條解說，三民書局總經銷 (2000)
黃文儀，專利實務，三民書局總經銷，第二版 (2000)
陳智超，專利法理論與實務，五南圖書出版股份有限公司，初版 (2002)
曾陳明汝，兩案暨歐美專利法，翰蘆圖書有限公司經銷 (2002)
雷雅雯，侵害專利權之民事責任與救濟，司法院，初版 (2002)
蔡明誠，專利法，國立臺灣大學科技整合法律學研究所，第二版 (2009)
蔡明誠，發明專利法研究，臺大法學院經銷，第二版 (1998)
羅柄榮，工業財產權叢論－世紀篇，永騰印刷有限公司，初版 (2002)
中文學位論文
王瓊忠，專利侵害判斷之研究－以均等論下之先前技術阻卻研究為中心，雲林科技大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2008年
吳俊龍，我國法院審理專利侵權訴訟實務之研究—以第一審為中心，國立政治大學碩士論文，2011年
林國塘，均等論在專利審查時適用之研究，世新大學法學院碩士論文，2003年
倪萬鑾，均等論之比較研究，國防管理學院法律研究所碩士論文，法律研究所碩士論文，2002年
陳定富，均等論應用於我國專利訴訟案例之實證研究—以最高法院與智慧財產法院之判決為基礎，東吳大學法律研究所碩士論文，2009年
陳志杰，美國專利案例侵害判斷之均等論研究—兼論我國實務之改進，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2002年
陳建欽，均等論之適用與發展－以日本與我國之理論與實務為主，國立成功大學碩士論文，2011年
中文期刊
王瓊忠、蔡岳勳，先前技術阻卻侵權之探討，智慧財產評論，第8卷第2期，頁1-37，2010年12月沈宗倫，手段功能專利侵害與均等論之適用—評智慧財產法院九十八年度民專上易字第三號判決，月旦法學，第190期，頁125-146，2011年3月
沈宗倫，均等論與禁反言之「權利糾葛」--評最高法院九十六年臺上字第一一三四號民事判決及其下級法院判決，月旦法學，第162期，頁138-166，2008年11月
沈宗倫，專利侵害均等論之過去、現在及未來—我國法應何去何從？，東吳法律學報，第20卷第2期，頁173-222，2008年10月林發立，「均等論」行不行﹖美國最高法院對於均等論與禁反言適用之近期見解，智慧財產權，第44期，頁19-30，2002年8月邵宇奇，由美國最高法院的HILTON DAVIS判例談均等論最新動態，資訊法務透析，頁47-55，1997年5月倪萬鑾，均等論的優、缺點研析，智慧財產權，第47期，頁34-44，2002年11月洪瑞章，由美國FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO. LTD. 案來觀察「均等論」之最新演變，智慧財產，第36期，頁67-70，2001年1月
耿筠 ; 劉江彬 ; 孫遠釗，美國專利法訴訟關於均等論之重要判例研究，智慧財產權，第13期，頁28-45，2000年1月張仁平，由國際專利侵害規範與實務論我國專利侵害鑑定要點之修訂與實務問題(上)，智慧財產權月刊，第90期，頁64-110，2006年6月張仁平，由國際專利侵害規範與實務論我國專利侵害鑑定要點之修訂與實務問題(下) ，智慧財產權月刊，第91期，頁99-131，2006年7月曾勝珍，美國專利法中「均等論」之探討，嶺東學報，第16期，頁167-190，2004年12月劉孔中、倪萬鑾，均等論在我國實務應用上所生問題之檢討，智慧財產權，第40期，頁55-66，2002年4月錢逸霖，論美國專利法下之均等論與禁反言—深入剖析美國FESTO案，智慧財產權月刊，第70期，頁55-72，2004年10月羅炳榮，專利侵害鑑定(下)，智慧財產權，第60期，頁16-55，2003年12月羅炳榮，專利侵害鑑定(上)，智慧財產權，第59期，頁18-54，2003年11月其他中文參考文獻
經濟部智慧財產局，專利侵害鑑定要點，2004年10月，HTTP://WWW.TIPO.GOV.TW/CH/MULTIMEDIA_FILEDOWNLOAD.ASHX?GUID=40CFDED3-3F8B-4029-A937-7ABF762B18AB (最後點閱時間：2011年10月)
經濟部智慧財產局，專利侵害鑑定基準， HTTP://WWW.TIPO.GOV.TW/CH/ALLINONE_SHOW.ASPX?GUID=FCEAEE3E-C989-445C-8F37-AB942C83233D&;LANG=ZH-TW&;PATH=828 (最後點閱時間：2011年12月)
英文書籍
ADELMAN, MARTIN J. ET AL., PATENT LAW (2ND ED., 2003)
CANELIAS, PETER S., PATENT PRACTICE HANDBOOK (2002)
CHISUM, DONALD S., CHISUM ON PATENTS (2011)
CHISUM, DONALD S. ET AL., PRINCIPLES OF PATENT LAW (3RD ED., 2004)
CLERMONT, KEVIN M., PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (2ND ED., 2009)
DURHAM, ALAN L., PATENT LAW ESSENTIALS (2004)
DELLER, ANTHONY W., PATENT LAIMS (2ND ED., 1971)
HARMON, ROBERT L., PATENTS AND THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT (4TH ED., 1998)
HILDRETH, RONALD B., A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE (3RD ED., 2005)
HOLZMANN, RICHARD T., INFRINGEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT RIGHT (1995)
KAHRL, ROBERT C., PATAENT CLAIM CNSTRUCTION (2001)
LUNDBERG, STEVEN W., ELECTRONIC AND SOFTWARE PATENTS (2ND ED., 2005)
MARTIN, RICK, DEMOCRAT JUSTICE: IS THIS THE CHANGE AMERICA NEEDS? (2008)
MILLS, JOHN GLADSTONE ET AL., PATENT LAW FUNDAMENTALS (2011)
MOY, R. CARL, MOY’S WALKER ON PATENTS (2011)
SCHECHTER, ROGER E. &; JOHN R. THOMAS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THE LAW OF COPYRIGHTS, PATNETS AND TRADEMARKS (2003)
THOMAS, JOHN R., PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT LAW (2005)
FRANCIS, WILLIAM H. ET AL., CASE AND MATERIALS ON PATENT LAW (6TH ED., 2007)
英文期刊
ADAMS, CHARLES W., THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS: BECOMING A DERELICT ON THE WATERS OF PATENT LAW, 84 NEB. L. REV. 1113 (2006)
ADELMAN, MARTIN J. &; GARY L. FRANCIONE, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IN PATENT LAW: QUESTIONS THAT PENNWALT DID NOT ANSWER, PA. L. REV. 673(1989)
ALLISON, JOHN R. &; MARK A. LEMLEY, THE (UNNOTICED) DEMISE OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 59 STAN. L. REV. 955 (2007)
ANDERSON, MARK R., FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO.: RESTORING THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS FOR CLAIMS MODIFIED DURING PROSECUTION, 2002 U. ILL. J.L. TECH. &; POL'Y 257 (2002)
AZURE, ANTHONY H., FESTO'S FFECT ON AFTER-ARISING TECHNOLOGY AND THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 76 WASH. L. REV. 1153 (2001)
BARRETT, ROGER, DISCRETIONARY USE OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IN PATENT LAW: GOING BEYOND THE TRIPLE IDENTITY TEST OF GRAVER TANK, 17 U. HAW. L. REV. 513 (1995)
BELVIS, GLEN P., AN ANALYSIS OF THE EN BANC DECISION IN FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO. AND THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 11 FED. CIRCUIT B.J. 59 (2002)
BOONE, M. SCOTT, DEFINING AND REFINING THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS: NOTICE AND PRIOR ART, LANGUAGE AND FRAUD, 43 IDEA 645 (2003)
BROUSSARD, M. AMINTHE, AMBIVALENCE IN EQUIVALENTS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS FOR PATENT LAW'S DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 64 LA. L. REV. 119 (2003)
CHISUM, DONALD S., THE SCOPE OF PROTECTION FOR PATENTS AFTER THE SUPREME COURT'S WARNER-JENKINSON DECISION: THE FAIR PROTECTION - CERTAINTY CONUNDRUM, 14 SCCHITLJ 1 (1998)
COCHRAN II, WILLIAM W., REVIEW OF SELECTED CASES FROM THE CAFC RELATING TO INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AND LITERAL INFRINGEMENT UNDER PARAGRAPH 6, 35 USC 112, 29 IDEA 253 (1989)
CONIGLIARO, MATTHEW J. ET AL., FORESEEABILITY IN PATENT LAW, 16 BERKELEY TECH.L.J. 1045 (2001)
CORDANI, JOHN, REVIVING THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT'S DEAD LETTER TEACHING, SUGGESTION, OR MOTIVATION TEST FOR THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 39 AIPLA Q.J. 163 (2011)
COTROPIA, CHRISTOPHER A., “AFTER-ARISING”TECHNOLOGIES AND TAILORING PATENT SCOPE, 61 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 151 (2005)
DAVÉ, RAJ S., A MATHEMATICAL APPROACH TO CLAIM ELEMENTS AND THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 16 HAR,V. J.L. &; TECH. 507 (2003)
DEWITTE JR. ,CONRAD J., FESTO CHANGE-O? NO WAY! WHY THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT'S ATTACK ON THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 51 CATH. U. L. REV. 1323 (2002)
FARAGI, ERIC J., A PROPOSAL TO RESTRICT THE PATENT LAW DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS WHILE A STATUTORY REMEDY IS AVAILABLE, 34 SETON HALL L. REV. 1299 (2004)
FILARDI, EDWARD V. &; MARK D. BAKER, PRACTITIONER PERSPECTIVES ON THE LAW OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT, CLAIM CONSTRUCTION, AND THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 54 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 823 (2004)
FISHER, KULANIAKEA, FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO., RATCHETING DOWN THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 17 BYU J. PUB. L. 345 (2003)
GREENE, BLAKE B., BICON, INC. V. STRAUMANN CO.: THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED CLAIM VITIATION TO ILLUSTRATE A NEW LIMITING PRINCIPLE ON THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 22 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 155 (2007)
GUPTA, ANAND, PATENT LAW: THE SUPREME COURT REINFORCES THE VALIDITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IN WARNER-JENKINSON CO. V. HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO., 23 S. ILL. U. L.J. 123 (1998)
HARRIS, JONATHAN M., FESTO HAS DECIMATED THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 65 TEX. B.J. 58 (2002)
HARTUNG, KIRK M., THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS: A MATTER OF CHANCE AND CONFUSION, 86 J. PAT. &; TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 645 (2004)
HOLBROOK, TIMOTHY R., POSSESSION IN PATENT LAW, 59 SMU L. REV. 123 (2006)
IRIZARRY, ARMANDO, HARMONIZING PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL AND THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS, 5 TUL. J. TECH. &; INTELL. PROP. 31 (2003)
JOHNSON, KEVIN P.B. &; BARAK D. JOLISH, KEEPING THE BAR HIGH: THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE SUPREME COURT'S FESTO DECISION, 2003 STAN. TECH. L. REV. P1 (2003)
KANDARA, JOHN N., APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS TO MEANS PLUS FUNCTION CLAIMS：WMS GAMING INC. V. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, 50 DUKE L.J. 887(2000)
KLEIN, ALAN P., THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS: WHERE IT IS NOW, WHAT IT IS, 83 J. PAT. &; TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 514 (2001)
KRYGER, WILLIAM T., THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS INTO THE YEAR 2000: THE LINE IS BECOMING BRIGHTER FOR SOME BUT REMAINS DIM FOR OTHERS, 3 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 203 (1999)
LAU, EMILY, THE TEST FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AFTER PENNWALT V. DURAND-WAYLAND, 22 IND. L. REV. 849 (1989)
LEVENSON, GARY S., AN ELEMENT-BY-ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 38 DRAKE L. REV. 389 (1989)
LEWIS, CHARLES ROBERT, CLOSE ONLY COUNTS IN HORSESHOES, HAND GRENADES, AND . . . PATENTS?: THE SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE EACH-ELEMENT TEST OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AND “CLARIFIES” THE ROLE OF PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL IN WARNER-JENKINSON CO. V. HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO., 76 N.C. L. REV. 1936 (1998)
LICHTMAN, DOUG, SUBSTITUTES FOR THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS: A RESPONSE TO MEURER AND NARD, 93 GEO. L.J. 2013 (2005)
LIN, QING, A PROPOSED TEST FOR APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS TO BIOTECHNOLOGY INVENTIONS: THE NONOBVIOUSNESS TEST, 74 WASH. L. REV. 885 (1999)
MARR, JEREMY T., FORESEEABILITY AS A BAR TO THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 2003 B.C. INTELL. PROP. &; TECH. F. 103101(2003)
MEURER, MICHAEL J. &; CRAIG ALLEN NARD, INVENTION, REFINEMENT AND PATENT CLAIM SCOPE: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 93 GEO. L.J. 1947 (2005)
MICHEL, PAUL R., THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF PATENT ATTORNEYS IN IMPROVING THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 40 IDEA 123 (2000)
MILLS, JOHN, THREE “NON-OBVIOUS” MODIFICATIONS TO SIMPLIFY AND REIN IN THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 14 FED. CIRCUIT B.J. 649 (2005)
NIECE, SAM &; ADRIENNE YEUNG, ANOTHER NAIL IN THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS' COFFIN, 12 NEV. LAW. 23 (2004)
NIECE, W. SAMUEL &; ADRIENNE YEUNG, THERE MAY BE SOME LIFE LEFT IN THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AFTER ALL, 13 NEV. LAW. 22 (2005)
NOTE, DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 111 HARV. L. REV. 400 (1997)
PAE, SUN Y., BALANCING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AGAINST THAT OF A PATENT OWNER: THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 19 DCBA BRIEF 21 (2006).
PAUL, DARCY AUGUST, THE JUDICIAL DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 17 HARV. J.L. &; TECH. 247 (2003)
PETHERBRIDGE, LEE, ON THE DECLINE OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 31 CARDOZO L. REV. 1371 (2010)
PHILLIPS, MATTHEW C., TAKING A STEP BEYOND MAXWELL TO TAME THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 11 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA &; ENT. L.J. 155 (2000)
PLAGER, S. JAY, CHALLENGES FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: INDETERMINACY AND OTHER PROBLEMS, 2001 U. ILL. L. REV. 69 (2001)
PUMFREY, NICHOLAS ET AL., THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IN VARIOUS PATENT REGIMES—DOES ANYBODY HAVE IT RIGHT?, 11 YALE J.L. &; TECH. 261 (2008-2009)
ROBB, KEITH A., HILTON DAVIS AND THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS -- AN INSUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE, 4 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 275 (1996)
ROBBINS, NICOLE S., THE CURTAILMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS: COURTS EMPHASIZE THE PUBLIC NOTICE FUNCTION OF PATENT CLAIMS, 35 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 323 (2001)
SARNOFF, JOSHUA D., ABOLISHING THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AND CLAIMING THE FUTURE AFTER FESTO, 19 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1157 (2004)
SARNOFF, JOSHUA D., THE HISTORIC AND MODERN DOCTRINES OF EQUIVALENTS AND CLAIMING THE FUTURE, PART I (1790-1870) 87 J. PAT. &; TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 371(2005)
SARNOFF, JOSHUA D., THE HISTORIC AND MODERN DOCTRINES OF EQUIVALENTS AND CLAIMING THE FUTURE: PART II, (1870-1952), 87 J. PAT. &; TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 441 (2005)
SCHULER, DARETIA M. U., LITIGATION, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AND THE FATAL FLAW: GRAVER TANK &; MFG. CO. V. LINDE AIR PRODUCTS CO. FAILS AND HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO. V. WARNER-JENKINSON CO. FLOUNDERS BECAUSE OF THE PRIOR ART LIMITATION, 41 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 453 (1996)
SCHWART, DAVID L., EXPLAINING THE DEMISE OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 26 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1157 (2011)
SORELL, LOUIS S., THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS TO CHEMICAL INVENTIONS: A PRIMER, 11 ALB. L.J. SCI. &; TECH. 225 (2001)
STEMER, WERNER, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AFTER HILTON DAVIS AND MARKMAN, AND A PROPOSAL FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION, 22 NOVA L. REV. 783 (1998)
STEMER, WERNER H., HONEYWELL INT'L V. HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORP.: THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT GOES TO THE EXTREME IN ITS LATEST ATTACK ON THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 87 J. PAT. &; TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 71 (2005)
STURICZ, NATALIE, PHILLIPS V. AWH, CORP., A DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS CASE? 12 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 385 (2008)
TEAGUE, BRIAN J., FESTO AND THE FUTURE OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, 3 CHI.-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. 1 (2003)
THOMAS, JOHN R., CLAIM RECONSTRUCTION: THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IN THE POST-MARKMAN ERA, 9 LEWIS &; CLARK L.REV. 153 (2005)
VERMONT, SAMSON, TAMING THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IN LIGHT OF PATENT FAILURE, 16 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 83(2008)
VERSTEEG, STEVEN H., PARALLEL APPLICATIONS TO PRESERVE THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IN A POST FESTO WORLD, 84 J. PAT. &; TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 341 (2002)
WAGNER, R. POLK, RECONSIDERING ESTOPPEL: PATENT ADMINISTRATION AND THE FAILURE OF FESTO, 151 U. PA. L. REV. 159 (2002)
WEGNER, HAROLD C., EQUITABLE EQUIVALENTS: WEIGHING THE EQUITIES TO DETERMINE PATENT INFRINGEMENT IN BIOTECHNOLOGY AND OTHER EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, 18 RUTGERS COMPUTER &; TECH. L.J. 1 (1992).
WHITE, D. ALAN, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS: FAIRNESS AND UNCERTAINTY IN AN ERA OF BIOLOGIC PHARMACEUTICALS, 60 EMORY L.J. 751 (2011)
WIDEMAN, LAURA C., WARNER-JENKINSON V. HILTON DAVIS: DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS CLARIFIED? 45 WAYNE L. REV. 271 (1999)