臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：論專利行政機關之司法權--以美國及大陸相關制度為比較對象
書刊名：銘傳大學法學論叢
作者：謝祖松 引用關係
作者(外文)：Hsieh, Tsu-sung
出版日期：2014
卷期：22
頁次：頁39-73
主題關鍵詞：權力分立；行政法法官；行政法官；專利；正當程序；公正；獨立；Separation of power；Administrative law judge；Administrative judge；Patent；Due process；Independence；Justice
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:1598
  • 點閱點閱:25
我國憲法依「權力分立」原則明定五權之職分，因此，若在行政機關中行使司法權，似將違反權力分立原則，其審判之獨立性亦有疑慮。然而，從美國聯邦及州之行政機關中，得見「行政法法官」行使司法權，竟未損及「權力分立」原則。 本文主張就「專業」及「效率」兩優點，在專利領域應可考量設置美國專利商標局之「行政專利法官」。我國公平交易委員會類似美國聯邦貿易委員會，應可考量設置與美國聯邦貿易委員會行政法法官制度類似之美國國際貿易委員會之行政法法官制度，以竟其功。 自行政機關中行使司法權，將衝擊現有法制架構中之訴願體系，故考量是否將行政專利法官設置於經濟部智慧財產局內，或經濟部訴願審議委員會內，採對現有法制架構中之訴願體系衝擊較小者，應以後者為宜。至於考量是否將行政法法官設置於公平交易委員會之上訴機關行政院訴願會，或於公平交易委員會內，亦應以後者為宜。 現行大陸知識產權局之司法權已超越美國專利商標局之行政專利法官，亦超過國際貿易委員會之行政法法官。修法後，應等同法院之法官職權。但預期此現象應隨其司法能量日益擴大後，逐漸移轉至司法關機關處理，甚或形成類似前述美國行政機關之行政法法官或行政專利法官之制度，亦不無可能。 在「權力分立」原則中，「獨立」僅為「公正」之下位概念，若實質上可達公正之結果，不完全獨立之法官或行政官員作業應予理解與接受，換言之，若其行使行政機關之司法權之公正性已依法建立，則應肯定其機制及價值。
In Pursuance of the “Separation of Power” doctrine depicted in the Constitution of the Republic of China, there are five distinct branches to form the government. Accordingly, if the executive branch is exercising judicial power, it is an obvious violation to the doctrine thereof. However, the existence of Administrative Law Judges in both federal and state administrative branches in the United States does not regarded as jeopardizing said doctrine. In addition, the Intellectual Property Office in mainland China are exercising judicial power as well, although it is conducted by executive officers rather than Administrative Law Judges. Therefore, it is worthwhile to conduct a study to reveal the infrastructure of these related systems. This article suggests that, judging by the “profession” and “efficiency”, we should consider to establish the Administrative Patent Judge to exercise selective judicial power in the Intellectual Property Office or the Appeal Committee of Ministry of Economic Affairs, such that people would be able to redress the grievances is the administrative branch in a timely manner. Further, we would also consider establish the Administrative Law Judge in the Fair Trade Committee based on the same reason. The rationale of this mechanism is that “independence” and “justice” are both underlying elements of “Separation of Power”, but these two are not mutual exclusive. So, if the judicial power exercised in the administrative branch can provide same level of justice, it is not necessary to mandate these two to be independent to each other.
期刊論文
1.Brown, Christopher A.(2005)。Recent Developments In Intellectual Property Law。Ind. L. Rev.，38，1181。  new window
2.Wood, Diane P.(1997)。Generalist Judges in a Specialized World。SMU Law Review，50(5)，1755-1768。  new window
3.Swank, Drew A.(2012)。An Argument Against Administrative Acquiescence。N. Dak. L. Rev.，88，1。  new window
4.Boyd, F. Scott(1997)。Legislative Checks On Rulemaking Under Florida's New APA。Fla. St. U.L. Rev.，24，309。  new window
5.McCown, F. Scott、Leo, Monica(1998)。When Can an Agency Change the Findings or Conclusions of an Administrative Law Judge?。Baylor L. Rev.，50，65。  new window
6.(1991)。Freytag y. Commissioner。U.S.，501，868。  new window
7.Lubbers, Jeffrey S.(1994)。The Federal Administrative Judiciary: Establishing an Appropriate System of Performance Evaluation for ALJs。Admin. L.J. Am. U.，7，589。  new window
8.Duffy, John F.(2009)。Are Administrative Patent Judges Unconstitutional?。Geo. Wash. L. Rev.，77，904。  new window
9.Molitemo, James E.(2006)。Administrative Judiciary's Independence Myth。Wake Forest L. Rev.，41，1191。  new window
10.Resnik, Judith(2002)。''Uncle Sam Modernizes his Justice'': Inventing the Federal District Courts of the Twentieth Century for the District of Columbia and the Nation。Geo. LJ.，90，607。  new window
11.Strohm, John P.(2009)。The Constitutionality Of The Appointment Of Copyright Royalty Judges By The Librarian Of Congress Under The Appointments Clause。J. Intell. Prop. L.，17，89。  new window
12.Timony, James P.(1994)。Evaluation of Federal Administrative Law Judges。Admin. L.J. Am. U.，7，629。  new window
13.Weis, Joseph F. Jr.(1987)。Agency Non-Acquiescence ~ Respectful Lawlessness Or Legitimate Disagreement?。U. Pitt. L. Rev.，48，845。  new window
14.Santos, Neil Edward L. III、Fernandez, Dennis S.、Patel, Nilesh D.(2007)。What IP Holders Ought to Know about the ITC and the District Courts。J. High Tech. L.，7，173。  new window
15.Beal, Ron(2001)。Issuing a Proposal for Decision: An Analysis of the Power of an Administrative Law Judge in Rendering Proposed Findings in a Contested Case Proceeding。Tex. Tech J. Tex. Admin. L.，2，209。  new window
16.Epstein, Richard A.(2008)。Why the Modern Administrative State is Inconsistent with the Rule of Law。NYU J.L. & Liberty，3，491。  new window
17.Field, Thomas G. Jr.(2009)。Limits To Administrative Appointments。IDEA，50，121。  new window
18.Schwartz, David L.(2009)。Courting Specialization: An Empirical Study Of Claim Construction Comparing Patent Litigation Before Federal District Courts And The International Trade Commission。Wm. & Mary L. Rev.，50，1699-1711。  new window
研究報告
1.郭介恆(2005)。美國行政法法官制度建構及相關問題研究。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.尹新天(2011)。中國專利法詳解。北京：知識產權出版社。  延伸查詢new window
2.馮曉青、劉友華(2010)。專利法。法律出版社。  延伸查詢new window
3.陸潤康(198304)。美國聯邦憲法論。臺北市：凱侖出版社。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.蔡秀卿、陳榮隆(2002)。從公平交易委員會依法獨立行使職權之觀點檢討現行行政爭訟制度。行政院公平交易委員會。  延伸查詢new window
5.吳庚(2010)。行政法之理論與實用。臺北：三民書局股份有限公司。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.李惠宗(2009)。憲法要義。元照。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.李惠宗(1999)。司法預算與司法獨立。權力分立與基本權保障。韋伯文化事業出版社。  延伸查詢new window
2.李惠宗(1999)。從基本權功能論司法獨立與訴訟基本權之保障。權力分立與基本權保障。韋伯文化事業出版社。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：378（臺灣：377，外國：1） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1931025 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67728032
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上