1. NCHU Institution Repository
  2. 法政學院
  3. 法律學系
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/21252
標題: 美國專利訴訟中馬克曼聽證會之訴訟管理
Procedural Issues Regarding Markman Hearing of Patent Litigation in United States
作者: 孫紹維
Sun, Shao-Wei
關鍵字: patent infringement;侵權訴訟;patent rights;Markman Case;claim construction;Markman Hearing,;patent application;patent litigation;timing;expert;patent local rules;馬克曼案;申請專利範圍解釋;程序法;舉行時點;專家證詞;產業佈局;美國專利訴訟;代工;商業策略
出版社: 科技法律研究所
引用: 參考文獻 中文資料 一、中文書籍 蔡秋明、蔡兆誠、郭乃嘉譯(2000)，Best, Arthur 著，證據法入門－美國證據法評釋及實例解說（Evidence: examples and explanations），台北，元照出版有限公司。 王承守，鄧穎懋(2004)，美國專利訴訟攻防策略運用，初版，台北；元照出版社。 王承守、周延鵬、陳郁婷、鄧穎懋(2008)，跨國專利侵權訴訟之管理，二版， 台北；元照出版社。 周延鵬(2006)，虎與狐的智慧力，一版，台北；天下遠見出版股份有限公司。 林洲富(2010)，專利法-- 案例式，二版，台北；五南圖書出版股份有限公司。 張宇樞(2007)，美國專利訴訟實務，二版，台北；經濟部智慧財產局。 陳省三，蔡若鵬，魯明德，劉宗樺，王乾又(2011)，專利基礎與實例解說，初版，台北；元照出版社。 葉雪美(2008)，設計專利申請實務 台灣及美國專利申請策略，初版，台北；元照出版社。 劉江彬(2003)，智慧財產法律與管理案例評析(一) ，初版，台北；華泰文化事業有限公司。 二、中文期刊 陳達仁，黃慕萱，楊牧民(2004)，從美國專利看台灣企業科技創新競爭力， 政大智慧財產評論，第二卷第二期，頁8-11。 黃文儀(1997)，美國有關申請專利範圍解釋的馬克曼判決，資訊法務透析，第9卷第4期，頁13-24。 三、碩士論文 林明儀(2009)，美國專利訴訟在聯邦民事訴訟中之特殊課題探討：以陪審團、特權、分階段審理與聽證為中心，交通大學科技法律研究所，頁169-197。 四、專書論文 宿文堂(2008)，什麼是專利策略，智慧財產的機會與挑戰，台北；元照出版社，頁528-530。 陳家駿(2008)，從實務觀點-談我國科技廠商面對美國專利訴訟之戰術須知，智慧財產的機會與挑戰，台北；元照出版社，頁539-565。 英文資料 一、英文書籍 Moore, Kimberly A., Paul R. Michel, & Raphael V. Lupo,（2003）, Patent Litigation And Strategy, 2nd Edition , Minnesota：West Group. Pretty , Laurence H., (2005), Patent Litigation, 5th Edition, New York: Practicing Law Institute. Mueller , Jenice M., (2009), Patent Law, 3rd Edition, New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Leavell, Robert N.& Love, Jean C.& Nelson, Grants S.& Kovacic-Fleischer, Candace S. (2009), Cases and Materials on Equitable Remedies, Restitution And Damages, 7th Edition, Minnesota:Thomson Reuters. Gifis, Steven H., (2010), Barron’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, New York: Barron’s. Hoyng , Willem & Eijsvogels, Frank(2006), Global Patent Litigation: Strategy and Practice, first Edition, Maryland: Aspen Publishers. 二、英文期刊論文 Binney, David H. & Myricks, Toussaint L. (1997), Patent Claim Interpretation After Markman - How Have the Trial Courts Adapted?, 38 Research Foundation of Franklin Pierce Law Center the Journal of Law and Technology IDEA 155. Chen, Tom (2007), Patent Claim Construction: An Appeal for Chevron Deference, 94 Virginia Law Review 1182-1183. Lee, William F. & Krug, Anita K. (1999), Still Adjusting To Markman: A Prescription For The Timing Of Claim Construction Hearings, 13 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 56-86. Lefstin, Jeffrey A. (2007), Claim Construction, Appeal, and the Predictability of Interpretive Regimes, The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress) NO.1980. Malek, Mark R. (2002), Markman Exposed: Continuing Problems With Markman Hearings, 7 University of Florida Journal of Technology Law & Policy 196-225. Moore, Kimberly A.(2005), Markman Eight Years Later: Is Claim Construction More Predictable, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 231, 239. Petherbridge, Lee (2008), The Claim Construction Effect, 15 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 215. Petruzzelli, Julie A. (2008), Claim Construction Strategy And Tactics In Litigation, Practising Law Institute Serious No. 14905. Salmon, Timothy M.,(2004), Procedural Uncertainty In Markman Hearings: When Will The Federal Circuit Show The Way, 18 St. John''s J. Legal Comment 1031. Schwartz, David L. (2008), Practice Makes Perfect? An Empirical Study of Claim Construction Reversal Rates in Patent, 107 Michigan Law Review 223. 三、英文研究報告 Bass, Kenneth and other(2006), The Sedona Conference Report on the Markman, Process, Arizona, The Sedona Conference. Bass, Kenneth and other(2010), The Sedona Conference Report on the Markman, Process, Arizona, The Sedona Conference. Eyre, Rebecca & Cecil, Joe & Toper, Eric (2008), Patent Claim Construction: A Survey of Federal District Court Judges, Washington DC, Federal Judicial Center. Federal Circuit Bar Association(2005), Guidelines For Patent Claim Construction: The Basics Of A Markman Hearing, Washington DC, Federal Circuit Bar Association Markman Project. Marcus, Stanley & Koeltl, John G. & Sanders, Barefoot & Motz, Frederick & Birnbaum, Sheila & Rosenthal, Lee & Ray, Frank & Smith, Fern (2004), Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, Washington DC, Federal Judicial Center. Menell, Peter (2009), Patent Case Management Judicial Guide, Washington DC, Federal Judicial Center . Schaffner, Joan(2004), The AIPLA Report, Washington DC, American Intellectual Property Law Association. 四、英文判決 Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 126 F. Supp.2d 69 (D. Mass. 2001). Biogen, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 18 F.Supp.2d 105 (D.Mass. 1998). Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Labs, Inc., 318 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Biovail Corp. Intern. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 239 F.3D 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Cybor Corp. v. FAS Tech., Inc.,138 F.3d 1475. (Fed. Cir. 1998). Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co. 192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999). EMI Group North America, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 157 F.3d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 (1981). Genetech, Inc. v. Boehringer Mannheim GmbH, 989 F.Supp. 359 (1997). Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d. 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Goldenberg v. Cytogen, Inc., 373 F.3d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chemicals Ltd., 846 F. Supp. 542 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Huang v. Auto-shade, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1307 (C.D. Cal. 1996). Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., 231 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Key Pharmaceuticals v. Hercon. Labs.Corp., 161 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Landers v. Sideways, LLC, 2005 WL 1772692, at 4 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 911 F. Supp. 76 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). MacNeill Eng’g Co. v. Trisport Ltd., 126 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D. Mass. 2001). Magarl, L.L.C. v. Crane Co., (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2004). Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995). McGill, Inc. v. John Zink Co., 736 F.2d 666 (Fed. Cir. 1984). MediaCom Corp. v. Rates Tech, Inc., 4 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D. Mass. 1998). Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc., 357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nazomi Commun. v. ARM Holdings, Inc., 403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir.2005). Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 339 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Phillips v AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co, 182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Palumbo v. Don - Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Reilly v. United States, 863 F.2d 149 (1st Cir.1988) . Rohm & Haas Co. v. Lonza, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 635 (1999). Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. v. Depuy-Motech, Inc., 74 F.3d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1996). SSIH Equip. S.A. v. U.S. Int''l Trade Comm''n, 718 F.2d 365 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Sulzer Textil A.G. v. Picanol N.V., 358 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Taylor v. PPG Indus., Inc., 256 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000). TechSearch LLC v. Intel, 286 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Tiomes Fiber Communications,Inc., 109 F.3d 739 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Tol-O-Matic, Inc. v. Proma Produkt-Und Marketing Gesellschaft m.b.H., 945 F.2d. 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1991). United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng''g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Voice Techs. Group, Inc. v. VMC Systems Inc., 164 F.3d 605 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Winans V. Denmead, 56 U. S. 330 (1854). York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm &Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
摘要: 
Chung-Hsing University
Thesis
Abstract
“Procedural Issues Regarding Markman Hearing of
Patent Litigation in United States”
Advisor: Prof. Dr. Lin, Yuh-May
Student: Sun, Shao-Wei
Over the past ten years, Taiwan companies have been playing a very critical part as OEM of worldwide computer manufacturing industrials. With long lasting efforts, Taiwan companies now make themselves well-known manufactures in the world. They build up independent research abilities which they did not have at earlier days. However, lawsuits follow with their remarkable profits. Taiwan companies now have no choice but to face business attacks from competitors all over the world in the name of patent infringement.
Among all patent rights, Patent of United States is extremely valued by global applicants. Such a phenomenon can be attributed by two main grounds: first, the sale of technology products within United States is larger to compare with any other marketplace all over the world. As is known, United States has a largest electronic product marketplace which appeals international companies to make their share as much as possible. Second, enterprises of United States hold key technologies of the computer manufacturing field. They carry strong research ability and then turned those technologies into influential patents. For the reasons above, it is rewarding for any international enterprise to pay attention to patent application and patent litigation issues of United States.
Ever since Markman Case in 1996, the right of claim construction has turned back to the court that originally belongs to jury. To streamline litigation process, Markman Hearing was set up by federal courts to meet the purpose. Since claim construction has the core value of patent system, Markman Hearing deserves very broad and deep discussion of patent practitioners. Said thesis will focus mostly on procedure issues of Markman Hearing; starting from the introduction of Markman Case, and steadily goes through the procedure requirements of the hearing itself, including patent local rules, timing of holding Markman Hearing, and the use of experts during Markman Hearing. Said thesis also intends to offer substantial suggestions that Taiwan companies might want to adopt to manage their patent portfolio within United States and to achieve their best business interest.
【keywords】patent infringement, patent rights, Markman Case, claim construction, Markman Hearing, patent application, patent litigation, timing, expert, patent local rules

摘 要

論文題目: 美國專利訴訟中馬克曼聽證會之訴訟管理
校所名稱: 國立中興大學法律學系科技法律碩士班
畢業時間: 2012年(一百學年度第一學期 碩士學位論文摘要)
研究生姓名: 孫紹維
指導教授: 林昱梅博士
論文摘要:

台灣企業近二十年來，始終盡責扮演國際間電子大廠代工的角色。在長久努力與累積之下，台灣逐漸擁有了具國際知名度的品牌，也逐漸培育了高科技產品的研發能力。伴隨著名氣與市占率而來的，則是以侵權為名的國際侵權訴訟。
在各個國家的專利權之中，首要之戰場莫過於美國的專利訴訟戰場，其理由大致有二: 產品市占率與關鍵技術。美國為全球最大的電子產品消費市場，幾乎每一家國際大廠皆以美國境內的銷售成果為其主要的收入。加上美國雄厚的研發能力，在專利佈局上取得關鍵地位，以上兩個理由造成美國專利申請與專利訴訟在國際間扮演舉足輕重的角色。
自1996年馬克曼案(The Markman Case)以來,申請專利範圍解釋權回到了法院的手中，為了使整個專利訴訟的過程流線化，本聽證會因應而生。申請專利範圍解釋(claim construction)是專利制度的核心，不論在申請過程或訴訟皆然，因此該聽證會不論在實體法或程序法皆有廣闊的探討空間，值得所有專利相關產業的注意。本文單就程序面切入，除了介紹馬克曼案始末及聽證會的程序要求之外，特別著重於聽證會的舉行時點與專家證詞的運用之探討，目的是希望提供台灣的科技產業，對於鞭長莫及的美國專利訴訟戰場有一個可施力的切入點，並將商業策略與訴訟本身相結合，達到所謂產業佈局的目的。

【關鍵字】侵權訴訟、馬克曼案、申請專利範圍解釋、程序法、舉行時點、專家證詞、產業佈局、美國專利訴訟、代工、商業策略
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/21252
其他識別: U0005-1502201210073700
Appears in Collections:法律學系

Show full item record
 
TAIR Related Article

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.