:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:以美國法之全部實質權利原則為借鏡檢視我國專利專屬授權法制
書刊名:政大法學評論
作者:宋皇志 引用關係
作者(外文):Sung, Huang-chih
出版日期:2016
卷期:147
頁次:頁347-412
主題關鍵詞:專利專屬授權全部實質權利專利侵權訴訟訴訟實施權PatentPatent licenseAll substantial rightsPatent infringement litigationStanding to sue
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(0) 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:9
  • 點閱點閱:10
對於專利專屬授權,吾人向來認為專屬被授權人必得以自己名義提起侵權訴訟。然而,新近美國學說與實務見解顯示,專利專屬授權契約倘未將專利之「全部實質權利」(all substantial rights)移轉予被授權人,則專屬被授權人依然欠缺單獨起訴之權。本文對美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院之判決進行研究,分析歸納出確保專屬被授權人訴訟實施權之關鍵條款與應避免條款,希冀能作為學術界與實務界之參考。本文並藉此反思我國法,經由比較法研究並參酌著作權法之立法後,謹提出二點建議:專利法中宜針對專屬授權進一步定義,規範構成專利專屬授權之關鍵條款與應避免條款,且規範上最好能與國際接軌;宜修法明定當專屬被授權人取得訴訟實施權時,專利權人不得單獨起訴,若欲起訴僅能參與被授權人所提訴訟作為共同原告。
It’s a well-accepted concept that the exclusive patent licensees have the standing to sue for patent infringement independently without joining the patentees. However, the recent academic and prudential opinions in the U.S. stated that an exclusive licensee lacks standing to bring suit if the licensing agreement does not transfer the patent’s all substantial rights. In this study, it is argued that the said opinions in the U.S. can be explained by the “act of disposition” of the exclusive agreement and yet it is difficult to identify what all substantial rights are. An empirical study on the recent judgments of U.S Supreme Court and Federal Circuit is therefore conducted, finding that while the standing issue derived from patent transactions was considered case by case, no general rule was established by the courts. On the ground of the empirical study, the necessary and prohibitive provisions of the patent exclusive agreements to ensure the transfer of all substantial rights are analyzed and concluded. In addition, the recent academic and prudential opinions in the U.S. are also applied to review the Taiwan’s Patent Law, revealing that its provisions relating to patent exclusive license are not complete and precise enough. After conducting a comparative study, two aspects of a patent law amendment are proposed as follows: (1) the patent exclusive license should be well-defined in the Patent Law, including the necessary and prohibitive provisions of the patent exclusive agreements to ensure the transfer of all substantial rights; and (2) the patentee should have no more standing to sue for infringement independently if the exclusive licensee has obtained the standing to sue independently. The patentee, however, could still bring sue by joining the exclusive licensee.
期刊論文
1.楊崇森(20101000)。美國民事訴訟制度之特色與對我國之啟示。軍法專刊,56(5),5-44。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Barzilay, Ilan、Bochneak, Bainelle(2010)。The Ground on Which You Stand: Lessons in Licensing。Intell. Prop. and Tech. L. J.,22(9),1。  new window
3.Erstling, Jay A.、Struve, Frederik W.(2014)。A Framework for Patent Exhaustion from Foreign Sales。Fordham Intell. Prop. Media and Ent. L. J.,25,499。  new window
4.Greene, Timothy Denny(2012)。"AH Substantial Rights": Toward Sensible Patent Licensee Standing。Fed. Circuit B. J.,22,1。  new window
5.Greibrok, Sarah(2014)。Contract Principles: A Sensible Alternative to the "All Substantial Rights" Standard in Licensing Standing。AIPLA Q. J.,42,109。  new window
6.Larus, Christopher、Harting, John K.、Roberg-Perez, Sharon(2013)。Patent Licensing and Assignment with an Eye Toward Enforcement: Tips for University Patent Owners。Les Nouvelles,48,13。  new window
7.Masur, Jonathan S.(2015)。The Use and Misuse of Patent Licenses。Nw. U. L. Rev.,110,115。  new window
8.Million-Perez, H. Rachael(2016)。Post-Lexmark: Status of Prudential Standing in Patent Law。Suffolk U. L. Rev.,49,227。  new window
9.Newton, Jeffery L.(2009)。Assuring All Substantial Rights in Exclusive Patent Licenses。Les Nouvelles,44,235。  new window
10.Nguyen, Xuan-Thao(2013)。Patent Prudential Standing。Geo. Mason L. Rev.,21,17。  new window
11.Paslick, Marissa(2011)。"Exclusive" no Longer Means Exclusive in the Context of Patent Licenses--A Look at Why There is Value in This Ambiguity。U. BALT. INTELL. Prop. L. J.,19,167。  new window
12.Sandrik, Karen E.(2014)。Formal But Forgiving: A New Approach to Patent Assignments。Rutgers L. Rev.,66,299。  new window
13.Schierman, Elizabeth Herbst(2012)。IP Transactions: Questions to Ask Before Buying Patent-related Rights。OCT Advocate (Idaho),55,20。  new window
14.Staudt, Nancy C.(2004)。Modeling Standing。N. Y. U. L. Rev.,79,612。  new window
15.Young, Ernest A.(2014)。Prudential Standing After Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.。Duke J. CONST. L. and Pub. Pol'y,10,149。  new window
圖書
1.謝銘洋(2012)。智慧財產權法。謝銘洋。  延伸查詢new window
2.姜世明(2016)。民事訴訟法。  延伸查詢new window
3.陳啟垂(2015)。民事訴訟法。  延伸查詢new window
4.劉國讚(2015)。專利法之理論與實用。元照出版公司。  延伸查詢new window
5.蔡明誡(2000)。發明專利法研究。  延伸查詢new window
6.Adelman, Martin J.、Rader, Randall R.、Thomas, John R.、Wegner, Harold C.(2003)。Cases and Materials on Patent Law。St. Paul, MN:West Group。  new window
7.Bryer, Lanning G.、Lebson, Scott J.、Asbell, Matthew D.(2011)。INTELLECTUAL Property Strategies for the 21 th Century Corporation。Hoboken, NJ:Wiley。  new window
8.Kieff, F. Scot、Newman, Pauline、Schwartz, Herbert F.、Smith, Henry E.(2013)。Principles of Patent Law--Cases and Materials。St. Paul, MN:West Group。  new window
9.McManus, John P.(2012)。Intellectual Property--From Creation to COMMERCIALIZATION。Cork, Ireland:Oak Tree Press。  new window
10.Mueller, Janice M.(2013)。Patent Law。New York:Wolters Kluwer Law & Business。  new window
圖書論文
1.謝銘洋(2006)。契約自由原則在智慧財產權授權契約中之運用及其限制。智慧財產權之基礎理論。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關博士論文
 
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE