台灣半導體公司多半曾受制於專利訴訟或苦於支付高額專利權利金，因而多年來皆已投入大量人力及財力於建構專利組合。然而對於非傳統利潤製造單位之智權部門而言，因專利申請/獲准件數多半被視為研發部門之成果，若無法以專利件數以外之具體數字呈現出部門價值，則智權部門對於公司經營之重要性常被忽略。但衡諸目前通用之專利鑑價方式，在此一目的上皆有其未盡完善之處，如「成本法」無法表示出「投資」專利申請的意義，而其他方式大致上皆以「預估」之獲利或市場價值表示專利價值，無法評量智權部門在建構專利組合時對於公司已發生之實質貢獻。另一方面亦無法協助審視花費甚鉅所建構而成的專利組合是否達成當初所設定的效果－「降低專利權利金支出」，以資規劃或修正專利佈局策略。本文藉由實證研究，分析專利組合中可能影響專利權利金支出的因素，發現專利組合之專利分類廣度對於降低專利權利金支出的效果，較獲准專利件數明顯。此一發現不僅符合研究之初的假設，對於目前仍專注於增加專利組合件數的公司，可提供一個修正建構方向的參考，避免將有限資源虛耗在盲目申請專利上，同時亦可提供公司智權部門在無訴訟情況下，以專利件數以外之具體數字呈現出部門價值。

For decades, semiconductor companies in Taiwan have been harassed with patent litigations and/or suffered from high royalty rates imposed by others, either competitors or royalty-thirsty patentees. Many of them have been invested tremendous resources in building patent portfolios of their own trying to balance the long-inclined situation. The result is yet determined. Meanwhile, since patent portfolio is usually deemed as part of achievement by R&D departments, the IP department who actually handle patent applications and build the patent portfolio receive only very limited credits. In order to more correctly present their importance and indispensability, IP people will need some more convincing facts other than the ‘number” of issued patents, which has already juiced by R&D department. However, methods for the valuation of patent portfolio available today are insufficient to meet both needs, to show at least (1) what IP department actually contribute and (2) whether the costly patent portfolio accomplishes what originally expected, i.e., reduction of royalty payment. In this article, several factors are analyzed for patent portfolio with a statistical model, and the empirical study employed herein furnishes reasonable outcomes.

中文摘要…………………………………………………… i
英文摘要…………………………………………………… ii
誌謝………………………………………………………… ii
目錄………………………………………………………… iv
表目錄……………………………………………………… v
圖目錄……………………………………………………… vi
一、 緒論…………………………………………………… 1
1.1 研究動機……………………………………………… 2
1.2 問題提出……………………………………………… 2
1.3 研究範圍及方法……………………………………… 2
二、 專利權與禁制令……………………………………… 4
三、 專利分析與專利鑑價………………………………… 7
3.1 專利分析與專利鑑價的目的………………………… 7
3.2 專利分析與鑑價的方式……………………………… 7
3.3 對於專利組合分析的新需求………………………… 12
四、 在「禁制令」下的專利防禦模式…………………… 14
4.1 建立專利反制模型…………………………………… 15
4.2 建構專利反制能力的代價…………………………… 19
4.3 建構專利反制能力的限制…………………………… 20
五、 實證分析……………………………………………… 25
5.1 分析範圍及目的……………………………………… 25
5.2 實證研究結果………………………………………… 27
5.2.1 專利組合先天性限制……………………………… 27
5.2.2 專利組合對於權利金的影響……………………… 31
5.2.3 分析結果與討論…………………………………… 40
六、 結論…………………………………………………… 43
參考文獻………………………………………………………… 46

*林洲富，「專利侵害之民事救濟制度」，國立中正大學法律學研究所博士論文，2007年。
*杜英儀、范建得、邱榮輝，「、歐、日及韓等有關知識產權(智慧財產權)之鑑價機構、交易市場與融資機構之研究」美，九十一年度『主要國家經貿政策制度與法令之調查研究』，經濟部研發會，2002年
*張孟元，「無形資源產中技術價值「影響因素與評估模式」之研究－以「資訊科技相關技術」為例」，國立政治大學資訊管理學研究所博士論文，2001 年。
*馮震宇，智慧財產發展趨勢與重要問題之研究，元照出版有限公司，2004 年8 月，初版2 刷。
*盧佳德，「專利排他權之研究-以美國專利案件永久禁制令之核發為中心」，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2007年
*劉長勇，「台灣積體電路公司－晶圓代工的領導者」，（http://cm.nsycu.edu.tw/~cyliu/case/case10.doc）
*Bronwyn H. Hall & Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis, The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995, RAND Journal of Economics, pp. 101-128, Vol. 32, No. 1, Spring 2001
*Charles R. McManis, Intellectual property and international mergers and acquisitions, 66 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1238, 1309-14 (1998). NPV is the sum of the discounted net cash flows minus the initial cash outlay.
*Damien Geradin, Anne Layne-Farrar & A. Jorge Padilla, The Complements Problem within Standard Setting: Assessing the Evidence on Royalty Stacking, 14 B.U.J. Sci.&Tech.L. 144 (2008)
*Elizabeth E. Millard, Injunctive Relief in Patent Infringement Cases: Should Courts Apply a Rebuttable Presumption of Irreparable Harm after eBay inc. v. Mercexchange, LLC.? 52 St. Louis U. L.J. 985, Spring 2008
*Feng Gu, Baruch Lev, Markets in Intangibles: Patent Licensing, NYU Working Paper No. 2451/27465, May 2001
*Gordon V. Smith & Russell L. Parr, supra note 202, at 166.
*John R. Allison, Mark Lemley, Kimberly Moore & Derek Trunkey, Valuable Patent, 92 Geo. L.J. 435 (2004)
*Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1991 (2007)
*Michael S. Kramer, Valuation and Assessment of Patents and Patent Portfolio through Analytical Techniques, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 463 (2007)
*Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc. (MRI), Technology Strategy Mapping Using Patent Documents (2007)
*Mohammad S. Rahman, Patent Valuation: Impacts on Damages, 6 U. Balt. Intell. Prop. L.J. 145, 150-51 (1998).
*Nicholas C. Tomlinson, Tax Abuse Halting Progress? An Inside Look at Patent Donations and their Tax Deductibility, 35 Sw. U. L. Rev. 183, 196 (2006).
*Steven I. Weisburd, Strategic Patenting, Handling Intellectual Property Issues in Business Transaction 2002, PLI
*Vincenzo Denicolò, Damien Geradin, Anne Layne-Farrar, & A. Jorge Padilla, Revisiting Injunctive Relief in High-Tech Industries with Non-Practicing Patent Holders, (Working Paper No. 1019611, Social Science Research Network, February 18, 2008), http:// ssrn.com/abstract=1019611