均等論為實務與學者於專利侵害判斷所確立之原則，惟最高法院過去判決被論者指未試圖建立均等論之理由與體系。最高法院 102年度台上字第 1986號判決首次將專利均等侵害之內容作實質論述，上開論述相較於美、日二國均等論見解，有其差異以及未來仍有待再加補充闡釋之處。但該判決意旨相較於過往學者所指最高法院未能建立均等論之理由與體系之問題，已做出正面之回應，對於探討我國未來均等論實務理論之發展與建構，具有重要意義。本文由美、日二國均等侵害判斷之原則及其限制之介紹說明，對照最高法院上述均等侵害之判決見解，解析上開判決所闡釋均等侵害原則在比較法上與美、日二國之差異性，包括全要件原則、申請歷史禁反言、先前技術阻卻、置換可能性、置換容易性。並就實務運用該判決原則進行均等侵害判斷時，所可能產生相關爭議問題，提出初步建議及思考方向。期能在上開判決見解基礎上，提供作為進一步於我國實務發展均等侵害原則及爭議處理之參考。

The doctrine of equivalents is an established legal rule adopted by patent infringement litigation practitioners and professors. However, the Supreme Court of Taiwan has drawn criticisms for not elaborating the theory of this doctrine and providing little guidance on how to apply this doctrine in the decisions. In response to these criticisms, the Supreme Court of Taiwan provided its first clear delineation on the doctrine of equivalents in 2013 Tai Shang No. 1986 decision, which made a meaningful stride in developing the doctrine theory in the jurisprudence of Taiwan. Taking a comparative perspective to the Taiwanese Supreme Court decision, this article discusses the doctrine of equivalents and its limits as applied in the United States and Japan to explore their differences, specifically with respect to the all-elements rule, prosecution history estoppels, prior art preclusion, interchangeability and readiness of replacement among these jurisdictions. Based upon a legal analysis of the Supreme Court decision, the article concludes by presenting preliminary suggestions and possible approaches taken as references to deal with disputes yielded during application of the doctrine, along with the aim of achieving further development of the doctrine theory in the Supreme Court in Taiwan.