營業秘密侵害之損害賠償--以美國法、我國法及判決實證研究為中心_

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	營業秘密侵害之損害賠償--以美國法、我國法及判決實證研究為中心
作者：	吳靜怡
作者(外文)：	Wu, Ching-Yi
校院名稱：	國立陽明交通大學
系所名稱：	科技法律研究所
指導教授：	劉尚志陳在方
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2023
主題關鍵詞：	專利侵權；盜用營業秘密；實際損害；不當得利；合理權利金；損害賠償；實證研究；Patent Infringement；Trade Secret Misappropriation；Actual Loss；Unjust Enrichment；Reasonable Royalty；Damage Award；Empirical Study
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:0 共同引用:0 點閱:3

侵害營業秘密事件多發生在公司內部人員或合作夥伴，秘密所有人固然可以藉由保密協議或競業禁止的違約金約款，減輕訴訟上之舉證責任，惟法院衡量或酌減違約金數額時，仍會考量權利人的損害及侵權人之獲利程度，兩造在訴訟上不免必須進行損害大小的攻防。
營業秘密與專利均為無體財產，遭侵權或盜用後，權利人並不會喪失使用權能，其「損害」難以比附援引有體財產權之損害觀念。加以侵害專利之方法為「實施」專利，通常會有具體之侵權產品可以計算銷售損失之所失利益；然而侵害營業秘密之方法為「取得」、「洩漏」、「使用」，而「使用」營業秘密並非僅限於以營業秘密生產侵權產品加以銷售，依據營業秘密協助或加速研發、節省成本、招攬客戶都可定義為「使用」行為，因此較諸專利侵權，營業秘密之損害更具多樣性，也更難以估算，因此美國統一營業秘密法准許原告向被告請求因盜用營業秘密所獲利益，此為專利法所無之衡平救濟，而我國本來即有不當得利之請求權基礎可以援用，在此情況下，也衍生如何衡量被告因盜用而生之獲利大小問題。
本論文旨在探討營業秘密侵害之損害衡量方法，第一章為研究動機與目的，第二章則節錄作者先前對專利侵權損害賠償之研究成果，以便與營業秘密侵害互為參照比對。第三章介紹侵害營業秘密損害賠償之美國法制，包括成文法及案例法，並由案例歸納出美國對侵害營業秘密之金錢救濟類型，至於訴訟上如何估算損害，則以美國會計師協會出版之「計算侵害智慧財產權損害之執業協助」、「計算所失利益之執業協助」及我國之評價準則公報第七號《無形資產之評價》等資料，輔以美國學者對此議題所發表之文章及書籍，依類型分析說明。第四章比較營業秘密侵害與專利侵權損害賠償之異同，第五章回到我國法制，並進行司法判決之實證研究，第六章為結論，除彙整各章重點外，依實證研究獲得之成果，以比較法的觀點，提出本文之建議。

以文找文

Instances of trade secret infringement often occur among internal company personnel or business partners. While trade secret owners can alleviate the burden of proof in litigation through confidentiality agreements or non-compete clause penalty arrangements, courts still consider the extent of damages to the rights holder and the profits gained by the infringing party when assessing or reducing the amount of breach of contract penalties. Both sides involved in the litigation are inevitably engaged in a battle over the magnitude of damages.
Trade secrets and patents are both intangible properties. After being infringed or misappropriated, rights holders do not lose their right to use them, and the concept of "damage" is difficult to equate with the concept of damage associated with tangible property rights. In addition, the method of patent infringement is "utilization" of the patent, and there are usually specific infringing products that can be used to calculate the lost profits due to decreased sales. However, the methods of trade secret misappropriation include "acquisition," "disclosure," and "use." Moreover, "use" of a trade secret is not limited to producing infringing products and selling them; it includes utilizing the trade secret to aid or expedite research and development, cut costs, and attract customers. Therefore, compared to patent infringement, the damages resulting from trade secret misappropriation are more diverse and difficult to estimate. Consequently, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in the United States allows plaintiffs to request the gains obtained by defendants through the misappropriation of trade secrets, a remedy that patent law lacks. Similarly, in our country, there is already a basis for claims of unjust enrichment, which gives rise to the issue of measuring the extent of the defendant's profits from misappropriation.
This thesis aims to explore methods for quantifying damages resulting from trade secret misappropriation. Chapter 1 introduces the motivation and objectives of this study. Chapter 2 excerpts the author's previous research results on patent infringement damages for cross-reference and comparison with trade secret misappropriation. Chapter 3 introduces the legal framework for damages resulting from trade secret misappropriation in the United States, including statutory law and case law. It deduces the types of monetary relief for trade secret misappropriation from case law. Regarding the estimation of damages in litigation, this article refers to resources such as the "Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1," "Calculating lost profits; Practice aid 06-4" published by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Taiwan’s Evaluation Standard Bulletin No. 7 "Evaluation of Intangible Assets," and articles and books published by American scholars on this topic, and explains and analyzes these materials by category. Chapter 4 compares the differences and similarities between damages resulting from trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Chapter 5 returns to the legal framework in our country and conducts empirical research on judicial verdicts. Chapter 6 is the conclusion, which, in addition to summarizing the key points of each chapter, presents recommendations based on the outcomes of empirical research from a comparative law perspective.

以文找文

參考文獻
中文部分（依作者姓名或組織名稱首字筆劃排列）

一、書籍：
1.王澤鑑，《不當得利》，增訂新版，著者發行，2009 年。
2.李宗黎、林蕙真，《會計學新論，下冊》，十一版，証業， 2020年5月。
3.邱聯恭，《程序選擇權論》，初版，著者發行，2000年9月。
4.許士宦，《集中審理與審理原則》，初版，林學林，2009年4月。
5.曾勝珍，《論我國經濟間諜法立法之必要性－以美國法制為中心》，初版，元照，2007年12月。
6.彭火樹，《無形資產評價管理中高級能力能定：無形資產評價》，初版，台灣金融研訓院， 2019年8月。
7.謝銘洋，《智慧財產權之基礎理論》，四版二刷，2006年5月。

二、期刊論文
1.李維心，「營業秘密損害賠償計算規定之研究」，全國律師，第20卷第11期， 2016年。
2.吳靜怡，「專利侵權損害賠償之實證研究」，科技法學評論，第11卷第2期，2014年。
3.吳靜怡，「美國專利侵權合理權利金之計算方式及發展趨勢」，科技法學評論，第13卷第2期，2016年。
4.吳靜怡，專利侵權損害賠償之範圍--以美國及我國法為研究中心，兼論智慧財產法院成立迄今之實證結果，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2011年12月。
5.許士宦，商業訴訟程序之新變革(下)—當事人主導型訴訟模式之邁進，月旦法學教室，第214期，2020年。
6.陳秉訓，「談美國專利訴訟之第一戰：『特定性管轄權』爭議」，北美智權報，第325期，2023年。
7.梁志鳴，「美國法院採用專家證言之審查標準：從Frye到Daubert原則的歷史演進」，萬國法律，第216期，2017年。
8.蘇瓜藤，「我國無形資產評價制度（上）」，月旦會計實務研究，第9期，2018年。
9.蘇瓜藤，「無形資產之評價（上）」，會計研究月刊，第252期，2006年。
10.蘇瓜藤，「無形資產之評價（下）」，會計研究月刊，第253期，2006年。
11.經濟部智慧財產局，營業秘密判決雙月刊（108年2月）。
available at file:///D:/ghost/Downloads/108%E5%B9%B42%E6%9C%88%E7%87%9F%E6%A5%AD%E7%A7%98%E5%AF%86%E9%9B%99%E6%9C%88%E8%A8%8A%20(1).pdf

英文部分（依作者姓氏字母順序或組織名稱首字字母排列）
一、書籍：
1. American Law Institute, “RESTATEMENT (FIRST) OF TORTS”, 1939.
2. Kristopher A. Boushie, Christopher H. Spadea, Martin F. Cunniff, “Calculating and Proving Damages”, 2016.
3. Jackson, Daniel L. L. and American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. “Business Valuation and Forensic & Litigation Services Section, Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1” (2006). Guides, Handbooks and Manuals. 26”, available at https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=aicpa_guides
4. Pollack, Richard A and American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. “Business Valuation and Forensic and Litigation Services Section, "Calculating lost profits; Practice aid 06-4” (2006). Guides, Handbooks and Manuals. 27, available at https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=aicpa_guides
5. Robert F. Reilly, Robert P. Schweihs and American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. “Guide to intangible asset valuation”, (2013). Guides, Handbooks and Manuals, available at https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2671&context=aicpa_guides
6. John G. Sprankling, Thomas G Sprankling, “Understanding Trade Secret Law”, Carolina Academic Press, 2020.
7. John W. Schlicher, “Patent law: legal and Economic Principles”, Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2001.

二、期刊
1. David S. Almeling, Walter Bratic, Monte Cooper, Alan Cox & P. Anthony Sammi, Disputed Issues in Awarding Unjust Enrichment Damages in Trade Secret Cases, Volume 19 Number 2, The Sedona Conference Journal (2018).
2. Richard F. Dole Jr., Statutory Royalty Damages under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the Federal Patent Code, 16 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 223 (2020).
3. Shawn D. Fox, Calculating Damages in Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Matters, Willamette’s Insights’ journal 12 (2016), available at https://willamette.com/insights_journal/16/spring_2016_2.pdf
4. Mark A. Lemley, Distinguishing Lost Profits from Reasonable Royalties, 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 655 (2009).
5. James F. Nieberding, Lost Profits and Price Erosion in Patent Infringement Cases: Implications of Crystal Semiconductor Journal of Forensic Economics M, 16 J Forensic Econ, 37 (2003).
6. Elizabeth A. Rowe, Unpacking Trade Secret Damages, 55 Hous. L. Rev. 155 (2017).
7. Douglas G. Smith, Application of Patent Law Damages Analysis to Trade Secret Misappropriation Claims: Apportionment, Alternatives, and Other Common Limitations on Damages, 25 Seattle University Law Review 821 (2002).
8. Neal E. Solomon, Lost Profits Analysis for Patent Infringement Damages, Social Science Research Network (June 11, 2010), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1623986

三、會議論文集
1. Sid Leach, Anything but Uniform: A State-By-State Comparison of the Key Differences of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, AIPLA Annual Meeting (2015.10.23).
2. Steven Rares, Using the “Hot Tub” – How Concurrent Expert Evidence Aids Understanding Issues, the New South Wales Bar Association Continuing Professional Development Seminar, Sydney, (23 August 2010).

四、其他英文參考資料
1. Esha Bandyopadhyay, Tommy Jacks, Recent developments in Trade Secrets Damages, available at
https://www.fr.com/insights/thought-leadership/blogs/recent-developments-in-trade-secrets-damages/
2. Chris Barry et al., PricewaterhouseCoopers, “2016 Patent Litigation Study: Are We at an inflection point?” 2016., available at
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/55996532/2016-patent-litigation-study-are-we-at-an-inflection-point
3. Craig Countryman, Ongoing Patent Royalties: How Should They Be Calculated? Fish & Richardson (Sept. 2, 2010).
4. FTC, “THE EVOLVING IP MARKETPLACE: ALIGNING PATENT NOTICE AND REMEDIES WITH COMPETITION”.
5. Jonathan D. Putnam, Trade Secret Valuation: Should Georgia-Pacific Be On Your Mind? The Sedona Conference, 6 (2018).
6. The Sedona Conference, Commentary on Monetary Remedies in Trade Secret Litigation, 5(2022), available at
https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/default/files/publications/Commentary_on_Monetary_Remedies_in_Trade%20Secret_Litigation_May_2022.pdf
7. The Sedona Conference, Commentary on Equitable Remedies in Trade Secret Litigation, 2(2021), available at
https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/default/files/publications/WG12_Equitable_Remedies_March_2022.pdf
8. STOUT, Trends in Trade Secret Litigation Report at 13 (2020). available at https://www.winston.com/images/content/2/0/v2/203824/trends-in-trade-secret-litigation-report-2020.pdf
9. Concurrent Expert Evidence and ‘Hot-Tubbing’ in English Litigation since the ‘Jackson Reforms’, available at
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/cjc-civil-litigation-review-hot-tubbing-report-20160801.pdf

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	論專利侵權損害賠償計算之實際損害法--以二審法院判決為中心
2.	專利侵權損害賠償及不當得利問題之分析--以飛利浦案為中心
3.	專利侵權下合理權利金損害賠償法制之反省與再建構--以我國專利法第97條第1項第3款之解釋適用為中心
4.	商標侵權損害賠償與合理權利金計算法之初探
5.	專利權侵害所生不當得利之本質與延伸問題探索
6.	專利權侵害與不當得利--以最高法院106年度臺上字第2467號民事判決為具體分析對象
7.	再論智慧財產權侵害之「損害」概念--評最高法院107年度臺上字第2359號民事判決
8.	論商標權人懈怠與侵權行為人損害賠償責任--兼論美國與兩岸商標法制之相關爭議發展
9.	論不當得利返還請求權做為專利權侵害行為之救濟手段
10.	專利侵權者所得利益與損害賠償計算之新視野--以智慧財產法院104年度民專訴字第50號判決為中心
11.	探討專利侵權法定賠償額應思考的面向
12.	以合理權利金計算專利侵害損害賠償之研究
13.	醫療糾紛民事訴訟實證分析--有責案件的圖像
14.	商標侵害損害賠償之計算--以合理權利金、侵害所得利益、法定賠償額為中心
15.	專利侵權損害賠償之實證研究

1.	專利侵權損害賠償範圍之研究
2.	論專利權的價值－以選擇最適鑑價機制為基礎
3.	專利侵權損害賠償數額認定方法之建構
4.	民事因果關係概念之再構成

無相關書籍

無相關著作

無相關點閱

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫