本研究以動態競爭理論，套用在智慧型手機產業的專利攻防戰，針對2009至2013年6月專利訴訟案件樣本進行深入分析，以事件研究法蒐集與智慧型手機相關訴訟案件，透過質性與量性的方式，探討智慧型手機產業之專利訴訟規律性與動態走向，以及對智慧型手機專利訴訟之原告廠商與被告廠商的影響。動態競爭理論鮮少談及多廠商之互動，本篇會多加探討多廠商競爭帶給產業的動態現象。
研究發現，其專利訴訟之動態有相互攻擊「以牙還牙」攻防的對稱性；「火借風勢，越燒越旺」，專利訴訟密集度隨產業市場的改變而有不同；「欲得天下寧，須拔眼中釘」，廠商會優先選擇攻擊主要競爭者；「聯合次要敵人攻擊主要敵人」廠商的攻防呈現一打多，以及次要廠商會聯合其所屬陣營之廠商對主要廠商提出專利訴訟，並提出該產業專利訴訟競爭的週期現象。量性的資料分析顯示，主要廠商的提告與被告都使股票異常報酬有好的表現，而次要廠商其不管是提告或被告結果都呈現負向或者沒有影響。在蔓延效果的部分，主要廠商提告次要與次要廠商提告主要廠商皆有蔓延效果的現象。
本研究彙集智慧型手機成長階段專利訴訟案件，為該產業競爭現象做分析，提供相關產業預測專利訴訟競爭的態勢，也供投資人、管理者股價波動的影響。

This research is based on Competitive Dynamic. We used this theory to discuss patterns and dynamic trends happened in patent war in smartphone industry and analyze it through qualitative and quantitative research method during 2009 to 2013 June. Also, we observed the impact between the plaintiffs and the dependents. However, Competitive Dynamic theory seldom refers the interactive among firms in the same industry. So, we will discuss more about the competitive phenomenon which caused by firms to the industry in this research.
We found that the dynamic of patent litigation has the phenomenon of mutual attack like "an eye to an eye", symmetry attack. Second, the patent litigation frequency will be affected by the changing industry market. Third, firms will choose to attack the key competitor. Forth, firms will cooperate with secondary competitors to attack main competitor, so it will cause the situation of one-to-many, also small firms will cooperate with the same group firms I order to sue the focal firms. Lastly, this research will show the industry cycle by the patent litigation.
Quantitative data show that, focal firm Apple has good performance not only when suing firms, but also being sued by others. On the other hand, secondary firms perform negatively or imperfectly no matter when sue or be sued by others. In contagion effect part, both focal firm or secondary firms are as a plaintiffs and dependents that will all have contagion effect.
This research gathered patent cases in the growth of smartphone industry. We analyzed industry competitive phenomenon, and predicted the development of the patent litigation. In addition, we also offered the impact of stocks and managers to investors.
Keywords: Competitive Dynamic, Smartphone Industry, Patent litigation.

中文摘要 II
Abstract III
目錄 V
表目錄 VII
圖目錄 IX
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究問題與研究目的 4
第三節 研究範圍與限制 6
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 動態競爭理論之沿革 7
第二節 專利訴訟與廠商競爭關係 13
第三節 文獻與本研究之關係 15
第三章 研究方法 19
第一節 資料蒐集方法 19
第二節 實證研究方法與變數操作性定義 32
第四章 結果分析 37
第一節 智慧型手機與專利訴訟之發展背景 37
第二節 智慧型手機專利戰實證結果 40
第三節 訴訟廠商股票異酬 65
第四節 智慧型手機產業專利訴訟競爭週期「分久必合、合久必分」 75
第五章 結論與建議 83
第一節 結論 83
第二節、研究意涵 89
第三節 研究限制與未來發展 91
附錄 93
參考文獻 101

一、中文文獻
尚榮安, & Yin, R. K. (2001)。個案研究。台北：弘智文化。
楊宜蓁(2009)，「專利訴訟宣告對被告公司及其產業內競爭廠商股價影響之研究–台灣電子產業之實證」，國立東華大學國際企業學系在職專班碩士論文。
吳傑棕(2005)，「產業之專利應用與專利策略研究-以電腦散熱產業為例」，國立中山大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
陳建宗(2003)，「公司訴訟宣告與危機管理對股東財富影響之研究」，國立台灣科技大學財務金融研究所碩士論文。
陳湘錡(2004)，「財務資本、智慧資本與企業價值之關聯性探討-以資訊電子產業為例」，台灣科技大學企業管理系碩士論文。
喬友慶、陳明杰(2010)。 跨國競爭性互動與廠商績效-競爭性旋律的調節效果。臺大管理論叢，21(1)，137-169。
蕭瑞麟(2006)。不用數字的研究：鍛鍊深度思考力的質性研究。臺灣：培生。
彭玉樹、梁奕忠、于卓民、梁晉嘉 (2010)。台灣管理學門質性研究之回顧與展望。中山管理評論，18(1)，11-39。
陳則文、侯勝宗 (2009)。 非預期工作創新：台灣大車隊司機個案研究。科技管理學刊, 14(2)，97-128。
陳明哲(2010)。動態競爭。台北：智勝。
楊勇、達慶利 (2005)。動態競爭和不確定性環境下的企業戰略管理研究-基於期權博弈的新視角。軟科學，19(5)，71-74。

 
二、英文文獻
Amit, R., Domowitz, I., & Fershtman, C. (1988). Thinking one step ahead: The use of conjectures in competitor analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 9(5), 431-442.
Austin, D. H. (1993). An event-study approach to measuring innovative output: The case of biotechnology. The American economic review, 253-258.
Ashton, W. B., & Sen, R. K. (1988). USING PATENT INFORMATION IN TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS PLANNING. 1. Research-Technology Management, 31(6), 42-46.
Bass, D. A., Parce, J. W., Dechatelet, L. R., Szejda, P., Seeds, M. C., & Thomas, M. (1983). Flow cytometric studies of oxidative product formation by neutrophils: a graded response to membrane stimulation. The Journal of Immunology, 130(4), 1910-1917.
Baum, J. A., & Korn, H. J. (1996). Competitive dynamics of interfirm rivalry. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 255-291.
Chen, M. J., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. (1992). Action characteristics as predictors of competitive responses. Management Science, 38(3), 439-455.
Chen, M. J., & MacMillan, I. C. (1992). Nonresponse and delayed response to competitive moves: The roles of competitor dependence and action irreversibility. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 539-570.
Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (1994). Competitive attack, retaliation and performance: an expectancy‐valence framework. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 85-102.
Chen, M. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (1995). Speed, stealth, and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 453-482.
Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (2012). Competitive dynamics: Themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 135-210.
Derfus, P. J., Maggitti, P. G., Grimm, C. M., & Smith, K. G. (2008). The Red Queen effect: Competitive actions and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 61-80.
Edwards, C. D. (1955). Conglomerate bigness as a source of power. InBusiness concentration and price policy (pp. 331-359). Princeton University Press.
Fama, E. F., Fisher, L., Jensen, M. C., & Roll, R. (1969). The adjustment of stock prices to new information. International economic review, 10(1), 1-21.
Griliches, Z. (1984), “R&D, Patents and Productivity.” University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R. (2001). Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management review, 26(3), 431-445.
Hamermesh, R. G., Anderson, M. J., & Harris, J. E. (1978). Strategies for low market share businesses. Harvard Business Review, 56(3), 95-102.
Harbison, J. R., & Pekar, P. (1998). Smart alliances. A Practical Guide to Repeatable Success, San Francisco.
Jayachandran, S., Gimeno, J., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1999). The theory of multimarket competition: A synthesis and implications for marketing strategy. The Journal of Marketing, 49-66.
Levin, R.C., A.K. Klevorick, R.R. Nelson, and S.G. Winter(1987), “Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development.”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity(3), pp. 783-820.
Layne-Farrar, A., & Lerner, J. (2011). To join or not to join: Examining patent pool participation and rent sharing rules. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 29(2), 294-303.
MacMillan, I. C. (1980). How business strategists can use guerrilla warfare tactics. Journal of Business Strategy, 1(3), 63-65.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (1997). Event studies in management research: Theoretical and empirical issues. Academy of management journal, 40(3), 626-657.
Miller, D., & Chen, M. J. (1994). Sources and consequences of competitive inertia: A study of the US airline industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1-23.
Nalebuff, B. J., Brandenburger, A., & Maulana, A. (1996). Co-opetition. HarperCollinsBusiness.
Pakes, A. (1986). Patents as options: Some estimates of the value of holding European patent stocks.
Peng, Yu-Shu, Lin, Yu-En, and Yang, Yi-Jen, 2010, The Market Response of Patent Litigation Announcement towards Defendant and Rival Firms- Evidence from the Taiwanese Electronics Industries, The Proceeding of Academy of Management (AOM) Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.
Raghu, T. S., Woo, W., Mohan, S. B., & Rao, H. R. (2008). Market reaction to patent infringement litigations in the information technology industry. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(1), 61-75.
Shapiro, C. (2001). Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. In Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1 (pp. 119-150). MIT press.
Scherer, F. M., & Ross, D. (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
Schumpeter, J. A. (2013). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge.
Smith, K. G., Ferrier, W. J., & Ndofor, H. (2001). Competitive dynamics research: Critique and future directions. Handbook of strategic management, 315-361.
Somaya, D. (2003). Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 17-38.
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research policy, 15(6), 285-305.
Thompson, A., Schäfer, J., Kuhn, K., Kienle, S., Schwarz, J., Schmidt, G., ... & Hamon, C. (2003). Tandem mass tags: a novel quantification strategy for comparative analysis of complex protein mixtures by MS/MS. Analytical chemistry, 75(8), 1895-1904.
Woo, C., & Cooper, A. C. (1981). Strategies of effective low share businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 2(3), 301-318.