我國過去專利侵權賠償責任之主觀要件，由於舊專利法中並未明文規定，學者與實務多認應回歸民法侵權行為之主觀要件，然而，該主觀要件之故意過失，究竟採取何種標準，當時尚存有爭議。經過學術與實務見解逐漸統一後，如今2013年新專利法已經明定採取過失責任，亦即專利侵權損害賠償之成立，除系爭專利有效、系爭產品落入專利權範圍外，被控侵權人仍需要有主觀上故意過失，始負專利侵權之賠償責任。侵權行為之過失責任概念，係採善良管理人注意義務，基於專利制度的特殊性，此一注意義務之概念在專利法中應該如何適用，不同專利侵權案件的潛在侵權人應負注意義務的範圍為何，以及侵權故意如何認定，係本文欲探討之對象。本文實證研究針對智慧財產法院成立以來之專利民事判決，探討我國審判實務上專利侵權賠償主觀要件的判斷標準。研究結果發現，智財法院將過失概念予以客觀化及類型化，對於不同類型之被控侵權人採用高、中、低等三種不同強度之注意義務判斷標準，殊值注意。

Previously, subjective elements of patent infringement compensation were not stipulated in Taiwanese patent law. Most scholars and courts referred to tort law for guidance. They initially disagreed on the issue whether the compensation for patent infringement should be strict liability, negligent liabil-ity, or the latter with assumption of negligence, but over time their view con-verges and largely considered it as a type of negligent liability, which is explic-itly adopted by the patent law in 2013. In other words, even though the patent at bar in a litigation is valid and infringed, the patent owner still has to prove the defendant’s intent or negligence as to the infringement to recover mone-tary damages. This paper investigates decisions of the Intellectual Property Court since its establishment in 2008, in search of practical standards that the court exploits to assess intent and negligence in patent cases. The findings of this survey indicate that when determining negligence, the scope and content of the duty of care that the defendant should bear plays a critical role. The court categorizes defendants with various backgrounds into groups and differs their duty of care accordingly. In this way, the court actually utilizes multiple standards in assessing negligence. The judicial practice objectivizes the con-cept of negligence, stratifies it for different groups of defendants, and there-fore worthy of notice.