專利權有效地受到保護，方能達到鼓勵創新與技術公開的專利法立法目的，而專利權範圍係由申請專利範圍予以界定，申請專利範園中的部分元件，原則上並非專利權保護的客體。 然而，若將專利侵害的保護限於直接侵害行為時，可能會產生保護不足而無法有效預防侵害發生的情況，因此，在外國法上便逐漸將專利權的保護範圍擴張及於發明中的部分元件，期能有效防堵專利侵害。 惟擴張專利保護範圍，卻又可能讓專利權人藉由法律保護來不當延伸專利權，形成專利濫用，影響元件產品的市場競爭，進而產生市場排除的反競爭效果，也因此間接專利侵害的保護便跟專利濫用產生密切的關聯，是故專利間接侵害的保護涉及了專利政策與競爭政策的考量，而在發展上，往往也是透過個案的摸索跟累積，以決定其保護必要性與保護範圍，並透過立法予以明確規範。 我國專利法目前雖尚未對專利間接侵害有所明文，但實務上仍不可避免地會遭遇到間接侵害的案例，要不要加以保護以及如何借助相關條文予以保護，便成為爭議問題。因此，本文析論間接侵害專利制度的發展，藉以說明其與競爭秩序的關係及相關問題。 基本上，是否要明確規定間接侵害專利一事，係一政策選擇問題，其保護需求與保護範圍取決於專利權人利益、競爭者利益、消費者利益與公眾利益之間的利益衡量，如何妥適地在各相關利益之間取得適當的平衡點，此有賴立法政策的討論。為有助於問題的釐清，本文乃就美國與德國關於間接侵害專利之發展與規定，作一介紹與討論，同時也就我國法目前關於這方面的討論，作一說明跟分析，希望能夠藉由本文的說明，暸解相關的爭議問題，以作為相關後續討論的參考。

The effective protection of a patent is necessary for achieving the patent law’s goal of encouraging innovation and the dissemination of patented technology. The scope of a patent is defined by the patent claim. When an allegedly infringing article contains all the necessary technical features of the claim of a patent right, it may constitute a (direct) patent infringement; simply supplying an element of an invention usually does not suffice. However, if patent protection is limited to the direct infringement, such protection may be insufficient and ineffective. Therefore, in order to more effectively prevent patent infringement, some foreign jurisdictions have gradually expanded patent protection to include the elements of an invention. Nevertheless, the patentees may exploit such expanded protection by abusing the patent, and improperly influence the competition of the element products, which may result in anti-competitive market foreclosure. Hence, there is a close connection between indirect patent infringement and patent abuse. The protection of contributory infringement, therefore, should involve the consideration of competition policy. Historically, the necessity of such protection and its proper scope has been decided on a case-by-case basis. Through the accumulation of such case law, legislation may later be drawn to explicitly address these issues. Currently, the Taiwanese patent law does not clearly address the issue of contributory infringement. However, this issue may unavoidably occur, and whether and how to afford the protection in accordance with relevant provisions will become a problem. This article discusses the development of the idea of contributory infringement, and tries to explain its relationship with competition and other related questions. Basically, whether or not to regulate contributory infringement is a policy choice. The necessity of protection and its scope should be determined by balancing the interests among patentees, competitors, consumers, and the public. How to strike a proper balance among these interests rests on a thorough legislative policy discussion. In an effort to clarify the relevant issues, this article introduces and discusses the development of the concept and legislation of contributory infringement in both Germany and the United States. Relevant discussions under Taiwanese law are also covered herein. The goal of this article is to explore these issues and provide a basis for further research.